[Rhodes22-list] Employee Free Choice Act!?
Brad Haslett
flybrad at gmail.com
Wed Dec 17 19:00:01 EST 2008
This is how bad card check is: AL SHARPTON OPPOSES IT! Tell me the
people who support this aren't owned by unions.
Brad
-------------------
This is a transcript of the Al Sharpton Radio program earlier
today. It starts with Charlie King of the National Action Network
explaining EFCA.
Charlie: The union leaders can go into let's say a business of 40
people and they can go to their homes and get 21 people to sign a card
saying that we want to have a union and once they get 50 plus 1 people
to sign this card it means that that work force has now been
unionized.
Al Sharpton: And what's the second objection?
Charlie: The second objection or concern we have is on the binding
arbitration. So let's say using my hypothetical that the union that
the workforce gets unionized by getting let's say 21 people to sign a
card saying that they want a union then you could have after 90 days
if you can't have an agreement between the union and the employer it
going into what's called binding arbitration and an arbitrator, a
federal arbitrator, would come in and basically decide what that
contract is going to be for two years. So essentially what you could
have is a person, a working man or woman, in a business who will have
a contract put upon them without them ever agreeing to have a union or
voting on it or having a say in what that contract will be once
unionized.
Al Sharpton: All right, now Sylvester Smith, for businesses, and
I'm very concerned about minority business after a long time fighting
for them, why do you think this is bad?
Sylvester: That's a very good question Rev. Sharpton. I
appreciate you for asking. If I could, if I may take a moment just to
kind of give you a little information about my personal experience
with this issue. I am a small business advocate. I own a small public
relations firm in Little Rock, Arkansas called Change Agents and one
of my public relations clients is a The National Federations of
Independent Business, which is the largest small business advocacy
group in the nation. So I understand the challenges that small
business owners face everyday as they try to provide quality goods and
services to their customers, and provide quality good paying jobs to
their employees so that their employees can support their families,
but as an African American person, who grew up in south Arkansas, I
also understand that there are certain business people who do not do
business in a way that is necessarily honest or upstanding and who do
not look out for the best interests of their employees. If I may take
another quick moment, I'll give you a recent experience that my aunt
had. My aunt was working for a small business in Louisiana and she
also…the business owner was her pastor and she saw the pastor engage
in some business activity that she didn't necessarily agree with that
made her question whether or not he should be her religious leader.
So she informed him that she was no longer going to attend his church
and he immediately terminated her. So that's an instance in which my
aunt would have loved to have had a union representative.
Al Sharpton: Right, to protect her job.
Sylvester: To protect her job, so I want to make it clear to your
listeners that I understand that there are some nefarious employers
out there that we need to be protected from but at the same time
really, Sharpton, this deal goes too far. Again, back to my
experiences as a young African American growing up in south Arkansas,
my mother ran for state legislature in 1990, an African American
woman, and in her bid to be the first African American member of the
state legistlature she ran into a very strong opposition from the
local establishments including the business community and she had
people come to her, both white and black, and say my boss told me that
if I vote for you I will lose my job, but there is a God above and I
know that he's going to protect me and I know that I have the right to
go into that booth and pull the lever for the person I believe in and
I did it for you. Now, this whole concept of eliminating the secret
ballot is contrary to everything that people like yourself fought for
in the civil rights movement to give African American the right to
vote, okay. And the reason that the secret ballot is so important is
because coercion is very real, Rev. Sharpton, and this whole concept
of a card-check system basically means if you want the union you sign
the card, and it's there for somebody to check. So, regardless of
whether or not you're for or against the union, let's say you're for
and you sign this card and the union fails. Well you're boss will
have a way to check that card to see who was against him and then that
opens you up to some coercive activities or retribution from your
boss.
Al Sharpton: Yeah, well, what I don't understand about it which is
why I'm in the campaign is why wouldn't those of us who support
workers being protected, why would we not want their privacy
protected. I mean why would we want them opened up to this kind of
possible coercion?
Sylvester: Well, and that's the 50 million dollar question, Rev.
Sharpton, it's a question we've been trying to answer but we think
that the heart of this issue is not about protecting workers, the
heart of this issue is about the decline of union membership that's
been going on in this country for the past thirty years. The unions
at this point are in a death spiral and much of it's tied to the
exportation of production jobs from this country to other countries
and the unions…
Al Sharpton: Yeah, the outsourcing, well I'm all for, and as well
for those who don't believe in the right to organizing, clearly I'm
for any legislation to give any state the right to organize, but I'm
talking about specifically where workers are not protected from
coercion, in terms of these card-checks that you talk about, and as
arbitration because explain, Charlie King, to me the whole question
that you raised, if you have a federal arbitrator who says that this
is the deal, even when the union only established out of card-check,
is the deal for two years, and there's nothing you can do about it, I
mean, a lot of the business that we afford for the African American
community to get contracts and sub contracts and all. They could face
some very serious problems here.
Charlie: They could face incredible problems with it. Number one,
it divides small businesses so that the employer and the employee
can't even really talk about what this contract is, and the second
piece of it, going back again to the secret ballot is, and Sylvesters
exactly right, is that the civil rights movement was predicated on the
right to be able to go in and say what you honestly believe without
fear of reprisal. That's why we have the secret ballot in electing
our president, our elected officials, and it's a critical component of
what we've fought for.
Al Sharpton: So let me get this very clear because I'm going to
have a debate on this, we're going to really get into this as we get
toward the inauguration, but you're not against organizing unions,
you're not saying that workers don't need unions but we're saying that
these two items are going too far. That's your position, Sylvester.
Sylvester: Yes sir.
Al Sharpton: That's mine, and I think that we need to debate it
and be real clear about it as this campaign is launched, we'll do it
starting next week. Thank you, Sylvester, we're going to kick off and
we're going to have you tell your legislatures how you feel about it
one way or another. You know how I am. We keep it real. That's my
position. Let's see what yours is. We'll take a break. We'll be
right back. Keeping it real. Al Sharpton, right after this.
continues…
Al Sharpton: Keeping it real. Keeping it real. I'm your host
Rev. Al Sharpton and we are back. You can watch us live streaming on
NationalActionNetwork.net. And we talked in the last segment, I'm
starting a whole series on looking at legislation going, by both
friends and foes, and I have serious issues with some of the things.
We started with NAN's conference, and NAN has joined the small
businesses in regards to the unions and this card-check legislation
that I'm going to be involved with, and you all know when I jump on
something I stay with it whether people agree or disagree so we're
going to start our weekly series talking about that and then other
legislation. We also want to deal with some stuff that I agree with,
from labor and from others, and again, I'll invite your debate on
these issues.
12/17 05:17 PM
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Rik Sandberg <sanderico1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Agreed. It's hard to believe there are people in this country so naive
> as to think this would be an improvement. I am *dead set* against it.
>
> Rik
>
> Will Rogers often said, "There's nothing quite like money in the bank." He went on to say, "I'm not so concerned about the return on my money as I am about the return of my money."
>
>
>
> Robert Skinner wrote:
>> This legislation, so far as I have seen, is a travesty.
>>
>> It appears to make it more difficult for employees of a
>> company to use a secret ballot when voting up or down
>> on unionization.
>>
>> Lack of a secret ballot gives the union toughs clear
>> targets, and invites intimidation. "Free Choice", my
>> nether regions!
>>
>> This, after the UAW stonewall? Enough, already.
>>
>> /Robert of Maine
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Brad Haslett wrote:
>>
>>> Herb,
>>>
>>> There's an aspect to the original joke that isn't funny - Employee
>>> Free Choice Act. This is an idea that is so bad even Sen. McGovern is
>>> campaigning against it. The only reason it's being touted is because
>>> the O'Blago team is deeply indebted to unions. I've worked under "at
>>> will", RLA, and NLRA. Everything is a compromise. Anyone who thinks
>>> "card check" is a panacea and a path to higher wages is smoking crack.
>>> The best lawyer in town can't win the battle against economic reality.
>>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ben,
>>>>
>>>> You haven't been paying attention.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't Bill. It was an imaginary joke person.
>>>>
>>>> So, here's the deal. The joke company's boss laid off (or fired) the
>>>> joke employees because of their joke politics. You've dragged this on
>>>> as far as I care to discuss it, but if you feel they need a joke lawyer,
>>>> have at it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>
>>>>> It's nice to know you live in Texas. Man, do I hate those Cowboys!
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, it doesn't matter where YOU live. Where does Bill live? You didn't
>>>>> talk about firing anybody. In fact you agreed with me that if such firing
>>>>> were to take place it would be something of which you would disapprove.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't dismiss the NRLA as a remedy here. If a business says, no politics, it
>>>>> must be even-handed and prohibit politics for both sides. Any discrimination
>>>>> would be violative of Federal Law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry Ben. Have I not mentioned that I don't live in New York? Or
>>>>>> California, Lousiana, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, or even South
>>>>>> Carolina.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I live in Texas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And please, none of the "common law torts" stuff. That's not hard and
>>>>>> fast, and you know as well as I do, that "infliction of emotional
>>>>>> distress" and all the other stuff are simply shots in the dark, and can
>>>>>> be attempted to apply to just about anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Texas is an "at will" employment state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, I know you still haven't fully accepted this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It
>>>>>> Was
>>>>>> A
>>>>>> Joke
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New York Labor Law sec. 201d protects political activity of employees of
>>>>>>> private employers as do similar statutes in New Jersey, California,
>>>>>>> Louisiana, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota and even South Carolina,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> probably afew I haven't thought of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In South Carolina the law was used by an employee who refused to remove a
>>>>>>> confederate battle flag insignia from his lunch pail to win
>>>>>>> reinstatement.
>>>>>>> There were some jurisdictional issues on appeal in that case but the law
>>>>>>> stands as protection of even "politically incorrect" speech for private
>>>>>>> employees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aside from specific state statutes, the NLRA (National Labor Relations
>>>>>>> Act)
>>>>>>> (Federal Law) can be used to protect employees in cases where termination
>>>>>>> was due to discriminatory enforcement of "no political speech" rules in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> workplace(as in McCain/Palin bumper stickers allowed-Obama/Biden stickers
>>>>>>> not allowed).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if that doesn't work the good old common law torts of Interference
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> prospective economic advantage, infliction of emotional distress, and
>>>>>>> outrage provide the aggrieved employee with lots of ammunition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's just off the top of my head (after a Christmas party and afew
>>>>>>> drinks).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aren't you glad you live in this greatest country in the world?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS- Can we talk about something else now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PPS- Have you checked the thinness of YOUR skin lately? Personal attack?
>>>>>>> Who's looking for excuses to feel insulted now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure you'll get a response. Cite the law that says differently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Through all your "wailing and gnashing of teeth" you made an important
>>>>>>>>> admission. You said, it's an employers right to fire someone for the
>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>> of "not liking their politics". I disagree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are the odds that you will reply to this post? Will I get the last
>>>>>>>>> word?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And Ben, I will repeat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not evil.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It may be stupid
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It may be a goofy thing to do (which was why it was a JOKE).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it's not evil
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe it was you (but very well could have been someone else), who
>>>>>>>>>> asked if I would quit by job if they sold bumper stickers that made
>>>>>>>>>> jokes about shooting Obama. I said I would. It's a bumper sticker
>>>>>>>>>> sellers right to sell anything they want, and it's my right to not
>>>>>>>>>> purchase from them if I'm a shopper, and not work for them if I'm a
>>>>>>>>>> buyer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, it's an employer's right to fire someone for just about
>>>>>>>>>> anything, including not liking their politics. Again, just some I'm
>>>>>>>>>> clear, It would be stupid, and it would be goofy, and I don't think a
>>>>>>>>>> person doing so would be successful in the long run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it's not evil.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for me calling your nonsense "shit", it is. You've chosen to make
>>>>>>>>>> this a personal attack on both Bill, and now myself. You've totally
>>>>>>>>>> mis-characterized what I wrote to fit your neat little (false) bundle,
>>>>>>>>>> and yes, I find that offensive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Futher, you accuse me of being "dishonest about the subject" when in
>>>>>>>>>> fact I've remained consistent in what I've said (unlike you're "fuuqa
>>>>>>>>>> bs"), and then after accusing me of such, say you're done.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suspect you are.; You've been revealed for what you are, pretty
>>>>>>>>>> consistently, and I have no doubt you want no more of it. Go take your
>>>>>>>>>> hypocrisy and attacks elsewhere if you wish, I'm sure the break will
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> a welcome one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Come on now. I'm perfectly happy to have an argument with you, but
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>> be dishonest about the subject and expect people to listen. The evil
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> were both talking about had nothing to do with laying people off in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> abstract. It had to do with the POINT of the JOKE which as you very
>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>> know was laying people off BECAUSE THEY HAD OBAMA BUMPER STICKERS.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>>>>> what made it funny to you and offensive to me. "They wanted change
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> gave it to them". Remember?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently I have somehow managed to hurt your feelings, because is
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> usually not your style to use vulgar expressions, except when you are
>>>>>>>>>>> feeling attacked, so I must have provoked you in some way to cause
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> "do
>>>>>>>>>>> you really believe the **** you write?" line. I do think we ought not
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>> such profanity on this list and would request that you not do so.
>>>>>>>>>>> Remember,
>>>>>>>>>>> you and I are not the only people who see this stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, my posts do reflect my beliefs, and for those who wonder why
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> waste my time with you, it is because your beliefs reflect those of a
>>>>>>>>>>> (thankfully small) number of people I have met and dealt with in my
>>>>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>> short, understanding the likes of you helps me. Thanks for your
>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>>>>> to my education on human nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Be well, Herb. Have a truly joyous Holiday Season. I think we're done
>>>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry Ben, you are under a misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There IS no "evil" in laying off workers. You may choose to call it
>>>>>>>>>>>> "throwing workers out in the street', but the truth of the matter is
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a person (or a group of people) choosing to no longer employ an
>>>>>>>>>>>> individual, and that is their RIGHT. It's not an evil, it's not even
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, unless they are doing something contrary to what they've
>>>>>>>>>>>> promised.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If they've signed a contract, they should honor it. If they've made
>>>>>>>>>>>> promises, they should honor those. But workers leave (often without
>>>>>>>>>>>> notice), simply because they find something better, decide not to
>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, whatever. Employers have that same right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the rest of your drivel, you completely mis read what I
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Might I suggest you go back and look at what I actually said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "... is not only wrong, but worthy of disdain ..." Is a clue, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> frankly, I think you're clueless. You see what you want to see, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone that doesn't see it is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And what in the WORLD are you talking about "covering for each
>>>>>>>>>>>> other".
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> said nothing in support of Ed, nor did I speak of Marxism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you REALLY believe the shit you write?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed and Herb;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Herb said,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You know something Ben, that you totally miss - EVERYONE thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause is worthy, and EVERYONE thinks those causes 180 degrees
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference between you, and others of your ilk, is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrogance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that says "Not only is my cause the worthy one, but anyone that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things differently is not only wrong, but worthy of disdain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> am so obviously right that anyone that differs that strongly from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unAmerican and wrong."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed said,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Your thought of arrogance is correct. Arrogance is especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who have loss touch with ordinary people. Arrogance is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evident
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in those of self appointed elites, many of higher formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> education."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So let me get this straight. A strong opinion as to the fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rightness" of one's position on an issue (such as the evil of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> workers into the street and out of their jobs, joking or not),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "arrogance". That is exactly what you both have said . So since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERYONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feels that way (that their cause is right and the other guy's is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume there must not be any absolute Right or Wrong according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical outlook. Therefor, in your view, all morality is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the person making the judgment. Thus MY morality (fairness to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> workers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disapproval of jokes celebrating the hurting of workers) represents
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrogance to you Herb and you Ed. My recollection is that both of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hold Christian values. Does this mean that your strong opinions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abortion or stem cell research are arrogant? If there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right or Wrong how are we to make judgments? I would offer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are Right and some things are Wrong, and that there are Good guys
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys, and the difficulty of confronting evil does not excuse us
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to do so. So yes, I believe Bill's joke of several weeks ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of a depraved heart, and was not the least bit funny.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes,I think the two of you ought to give more thought to what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an American and less to the marxists hiding under your beds. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hold
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> breath waiting for you to engage in any self examination however.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>> busy covering for each other to think for yourselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merry Christmas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tootle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rummy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody that comes on once every 3 or 4 months ought to consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure others can clearly i.d. who is making the comments. I do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your infallible memory. However, I do remember various trolls in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Study these web sites:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/facts/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.instituteforlegalreform.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to remember that one aspect of Marxism is control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. Remember that Marxism seeks to create a 'Dictatorship of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proletariat'. An important aspect of control is control descent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought. An element of dictatorship is for the dictator making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions the correct and only view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Marxist dictator will claim that he is speaking for the little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is glossing over the fact that the little guy can speak for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He pretends the little guy incapable of self defense when in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not true. He believes only the Marxist knows the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your thought of arrogance is correct. Arrogance is especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticeable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in those who have loss touch with ordinary people. Arrogance is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evident in those of self appointed elites, many of higher formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall pictures and news reports of a ceremony in the Roman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Church in Rome where the Pope washes the feet of a group of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cardinals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the purpose of that ceremony?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 1936 Major General J. F. C. Fuller wrote a booklet for the U.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Army
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitled, Generalship: Its diseases and Their Cure. Therein he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the arrogance of power and one of its cause as disassociation from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality. This affliction is evident in the U. S. national media
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acolytes and some members of this forum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Herb Parsons
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list