• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When You Bash "Socialist," "Liberal" or "Labor Organizations"

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,839
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do you really know what you are saying?

Are you saying that you are against the 8-hour work day?
Robert Owen had raised the demand for a ten-hour day in 1810, and instituted it in his socialist enterprise at New Lanark. By 1817 he had formulated the goal of the eight-hour day and coined the slogan: "Eight hours' labour, Eight hours' recreation, Eight hours' rest". Women and children in England were granted the ten-hour day in 1847. French workers won the 12-hour day after the February Revolution of 1848.[3] A shorter working day and improved working conditions were part of the general protests and agitation for Chartist reforms and the early organisation of trade unions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
Surely, you can't hate that.

Are you saying you support child labor?
Child labour has existed to varying extents, through most of history. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, many children aged 5–14 from poorer families still worked in Europe, the United States and various colonies of European powers.

International Labour Organization has helped set international law, which most countries have signed on and ratified. According to ILO minimum age convention (C138) of 1973, child labour refers to any work performed by children under the age of 12, non-light work done by children aged 12–14, and hazardous work done by children aged 15–17.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour#Child_labour_laws_and_initiatives
Surely, you can't believe that eliminating child labor was a bad thing.

Are you against universal access to education?
Access to education increased enormously in the past century, and higher proportions of people are completing primary, secondary, or tertiary education than ever before. But efforts to universalize the provision of high-quality schooling face major problems...The research suggests that achieving universal primary and secondary education is both urgently needed and feasible.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/educating-all-children
Is that what you dislike, education for all children?

Are you against living wages via collective bargaining?
Union members and other workers covered by collective agreements get, on average, a wage markup over their nonunionized (or uncovered) counterparts. Such a markup is typically 5 to 10 percent in industrial countries.[9]
Unions tend to equalize the income distribution, especially between skilled and unskilled workers.[9]
The welfare loss associated with unions is 0.2 to 0.5 of GDP, which is similar to monopolies in product markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining#Empirical_findings
Maybe that's where the problem begins to creep in: "Income Distribution." Surely that is a combination of bad words for some people to cringe over.

Or, maybe too much clean air and water is a concern for some.

The 1972 amendments:

  • Established the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States.
  • Gave EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry.
  • Maintained existing requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters.
  • Made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained under its provisions.
  • Funded the construction of sewage treatment plants under the construction grants program.
  • Recognized the need for planning to address the critical problems posed by nonpoint source pollution.


https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act
Although all of these bullet points make infinite sense, and although they were enacted by a conservative president, the Freedom gang can't stand them. Maybe that is because the whole idea of clean air and water sounds a wee bit too tree huggery for a real man.

I don't know what the problem is with socialist, liberal or labor, but I suspect it is rooted in people not really knowing what they are saying. What think you?
 
Bull****. Henry Ford brought the 8nhour work day and five day work week to Americans.
 
Bull****. Henry Ford brought the 8nhour work day and five day work week to Americans.

A few years before 1926; “In 1908, the first five-day workweek in the United States was instituted by a New England cotton mill so that Jewish workers would not have to work on the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. In 1926, Henry Ford began shutting down his automotive factories for all of Saturday and Sunday.
 
Do you really know what you are saying?

Are you saying that you are against the 8-hour work day?

Surely, you can't hate that.

Are you saying you support child labor?

Surely, you can't believe that eliminating child labor was a bad thing.

Are you against universal access to education?

Is that what you dislike, education for all children?

Are you against living wages via collective bargaining?

Maybe that's where the problem begins to creep in: "Income Distribution." Surely that is a combination of bad words for some people to cringe over.

Or, maybe too much clean air and water is a concern for some.


Although all of these bullet points make infinite sense, and although they were enacted by a conservative president, the Freedom gang can't stand them. Maybe that is because the whole idea of clean air and water sounds a wee bit too tree huggery for a real man.

I don't know what the problem is with socialist, liberal or labor, but I suspect it is rooted in people not really knowing what they are saying. What think you?
someone take bernie sanders laptop from him before he posts more hilarious crap
 
From the retards I've actually listened to, they all have stories of people they work with that are incompetent but can't be fired. They can't be fired because they are union.

That's pretty much the only legite argument I've heard against unions.

The rest of the time it's just some dumbasses sucking the bosses ****.
 
Bull****. Henry Ford brought the 8nhour work day and five day work week to Americans.

I suggest you read some more actual history, and far less Right Wing propaganda.
 
someone take bernie sanders laptop from him before he posts more hilarious crap

So, which is it you like: child labor, 16 hour work days, pollution, low wages, or all of the above?
 
If you defend socialism, which killed over 200 million people, you are worse than a nazi.
 
The problem isn’t liberals and conservatives per se.

It’s when one demonizes and exaggerates what they actually stand for. Conservatives are not reactionaries and Liberals are not radicals. Unfortunately, too many people use the incorrect label.
 
If you defend socialism, which killed over 200 million people, you are worse than a nazi.

Where do you guys get these numbers from? Every time I read this line of crap the number is higher. Gonna be over a billion if you get really excited in this thread, I bet.
 
Do you really know what you are saying?

Are you saying that you are against the 8-hour work day?

Surely, you can't hate that.

Are you saying you support child labor?

Surely, you can't believe that eliminating child labor was a bad thing.

Are you against universal access to education?

Is that what you dislike, education for all children?

Are you against living wages via collective bargaining?

Maybe that's where the problem begins to creep in: "Income Distribution." Surely that is a combination of bad words for some people to cringe over.

Or, maybe too much clean air and water is a concern for some.


Although all of these bullet points make infinite sense, and although they were enacted by a conservative president, the Freedom gang can't stand them. Maybe that is because the whole idea of clean air and water sounds a wee bit too tree huggery for a real man.

I don't know what the problem is with socialist, liberal or labor, but I suspect it is rooted in people not really knowing what they are saying. What think you?

When you bash Republicans surely you don't mean that you want to see slavery re-instituted in the US. Surely you don't mean that you approve of lynching. Surely you don't mean that you approve of segregation. Surely you don't mean that you approve of Jim Crow. Surely you don't mean that you approve of the KKK.

When you refuse to accept the results of an election surely you don't mean that Hillary Clinton was lying when she said that doing so is a danger to our democratic process.

When you endorse multiculturalism surely you don't mean that Obama was lying when he said that "there is no black America, no white America, no Latino America, there is only one America." When you endorse identity politics surely you don't mean that Martin Luther King was full of crap when he said that we should be judged by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin.

When you trash Trump surely you don't mean that you want to see high unemployment, low productivity, and low growth in the economy again.

I've got a million of them.
 
When you bash Republicans surely you don't mean that you want to see slavery re-instituted in the US. Surely you don't mean that you approve of lynching. Surely you don't mean that you approve of segregation. Surely you don't mean that you approve of Jim Crow. Surely you don't mean that you approve of the KKK.

When you refuse to accept the results of an election surely you don't mean that Hillary Clinton was lying when she said that doing so is a danger to our democratic process.

When you endorse multiculturalism surely you don't mean that Obama was lying when he said that "there is no black America, no white America, no Latino America, there is only one America." When you endorse identity politics surely you don't mean that Martin Luther King was full of crap when he said that we should be judged by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin.

When you trash Trump surely you don't mean that you want to see high unemployment, low productivity, and low growth in the economy again.

I've got a million of them.

Hey, I have an idea. How about you run around the South and ask your Republican friends down there what they think of Abe Lincoln, the father of the GOP. Get back to us with the results.
 
From the retards I've actually listened to, they all have stories of people they work with that are incompetent but can't be fired. They can't be fired because they are union.

That's pretty much the only legite argument I've heard against unions.

The rest of the time it's just some dumbasses sucking the bosses ****.

actually it isn't there are a few issues.

no amount of excellence will get you promoted over someone else who has been there longer.
you get the same pay increase as the guy that sits around and does nothing.

if there is a lay off the guy that sits around and does nothing keeps his job simply because he was there longer.

so yea there are a ton of issues with unions.

if something needs fixed you can't fix it even though you could because that is someone else's job.
 
The problem isn’t liberals and conservatives per se.

It’s when one demonizes and exaggerates what they actually stand for. Conservatives are not reactionaries and Liberals are not radicals. Unfortunately, too many people use the incorrect label.

Obviously, most people spray rage-spittle over something, even when they have no idea what the hell they are arguing against. See post 8 for a perfect example of that.
 
When you bash Republicans surely you don't mean that you want to see slavery re-instituted in the US. Surely you don't mean that you approve of lynching. Surely you don't mean that you approve of segregation. Surely you don't mean that you approve of Jim Crow. Surely you don't mean that you approve of the KKK.

When you refuse to accept the results of an election surely you don't mean that Hillary Clinton was lying when she said that doing so is a danger to our democratic process.

When you endorse multiculturalism surely you don't mean that Obama was lying when he said that "there is no black America, no white America, no Latino America, there is only one America." When you endorse identity politics surely you don't mean that Martin Luther King was full of crap when he said that we should be judged by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin.

When you trash Trump surely you don't mean that you want to see high unemployment, low productivity, and low growth in the economy again.

I've got a million of them.

Are you sure? Democrats actively resurrected the kkk after the republicans crushed them nearly out of existence...

How 'The Birth of a Nation' Revived the Ku Klux Klan

"In just over three hours, D.W. Griffith’s controversial epic film about the Civil War and Reconstruction depicted the Ku Klux Klan as valiant saviors of a post-war South ravaged by Northern carpetbaggers and immoral freed blacks. The film was an instant blockbuster. And with innovative cinematography and a Confederate-skewed point of view, TheBirth of a Nation also helped rekindle the KKK."

"Adapted from the book The Clansman by Thomas Dixon Jr., who was a classmate and friend of President Woodrow Wilson, The Birth of a Nation portrayed Reconstruction as catastrophic. It showed Radical Republicans encouraging equality for blacks, who in the film are represented as uncouth, intellectually inferior and predators of white women. And this racist narrative was widely accepted as historical fact."

Democrats seem to be all in.
 
Where do you guys get these numbers from? Every time I read this line of crap the number is higher. Gonna be over a billion if you get really excited in this thread, I bet.

how many nazis vs the russian socialists/communists?
 
actually it isn't there are a few issues.

no amount of excellence will get you promoted over someone else who has been there longer.
you get the same pay increase as the guy that sits around and does nothing.

if there is a lay off the guy that sits around and does nothing keeps his job simply because he was there longer.

so yea there are a ton of issues with unions.

if something needs fixed you can't fix it even though you could because that is someone else's job.

All of these issues can be resolved via new collective bargaining agreements. One reason for the seniority clauses, btw, is to ensure employers do not simply fire the higher paid senior workers. Not that employers would ever do that. :roll:
 
actually it isn't there are a few issues.

no amount of excellence will get you promoted over someone else who has been there longer.
you get the same pay increase as the guy that sits around and does nothing.

if there is a lay off the guy that sits around and does nothing keeps his job simply because he was there longer.

so yea there are a ton of issues with unions.

if something needs fixed you can't fix it even though you could because that is someone else's job.

US unions must be significantly different in function and operation than unions in Europe, if what you say is true.
 
how many nazis vs the russian socialists/communists?

lol...funny how you can't decide what the Soviets actually were. It's quite telling.
 
US unions must be significantly different in function and operation than unions in Europe, if what you say is true.

It's not. But, it sounded good to him when he wrote it.
 
Are you sure? Democrats actively resurrected the kkk after the republicans crushed them nearly out of existence...

How 'The Birth of a Nation' Revived the Ku Klux Klan

"In just over three hours, D.W. Griffith’s controversial epic film about the Civil War and Reconstruction depicted the Ku Klux Klan as valiant saviors of a post-war South ravaged by Northern carpetbaggers and immoral freed blacks. The film was an instant blockbuster. And with innovative cinematography and a Confederate-skewed point of view, TheBirth of a Nation also helped rekindle the KKK."

"Adapted from the book The Clansman by Thomas Dixon Jr., who was a classmate and friend of President Woodrow Wilson, The Birth of a Nation portrayed Reconstruction as catastrophic. It showed Radical Republicans encouraging equality for blacks, who in the film are represented as uncouth, intellectually inferior and predators of white women. And this racist narrative was widely accepted as historical fact."

Democrats seem to be all in.

Same challenge:

Hey, I have an idea. How about you run around the South and ask your Republican friends down there what they think of Abe Lincoln, the father of the GOP. Get back to us with the results.

Give it a go. Find out how that goes.
 
Same challenge:



Give it a go. Find out how that goes.

We love lincoln. He freed our people from the control of evil racist democrats. They of course continue to try with theft of land, labor, and now votes. We keep our chins up regardless.
 
Where do you guys get these numbers from? Every time I read this line of crap the number is higher. Gonna be over a billion if you get really excited in this thread, I bet.

I knew the points about 8-hour work days, child labor, clean air and water, etc. would be ignored, and the focus would be spewing out stupid crap about a billion dead people. I'm just surprised no one brought up Mao, Castro and Stalin yet. But, give it time.
 
Do you really know what you are saying?

Are you saying that you are against the 8-hour work day?

Are you against living wages via collective bargaining?
Red:
Yes.

Blue:
I wish I could recall when, prior to retiring, I last worked but eight hours in a day (M-F).


Pink:
  • I'm not against people obtaining "living wage" prices for the labor they sell. I owned a firm. I paid good and competitive wages.
  • I am not keen on, and given imprimatur about its existence or non-existence, I would and do oppose collective bargaining; however, if it must be suffered, it can be suffered.

    Quite literally, had the non-partners in the firm I founded opted to unionize, I would have closed the firm and started a completely new one before I let my business become unionized. I didn't go into business to boost GDP. I started my firm to generate income for myself and my family.
 
Back
Top Bottom