Comments on: Ideological Bigotry Part XI: Another activist lunatic

By: Joshua Godinez

Joshua Godinez — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:33 +0000

How interesting, Eric. It’s funny how you and I are so similar in our political leanings yet I almost always find something to disagree with you about. In this instance, it’s the concept of keeping politics out of the workplace. While I agree that it shouldn’t have anything to do with the work being performed, the workplace is where I have many acquaintences that I love to verbally spar with. I like getting my conservative badge on early when people start talking about politics because it seems to moderate their intemperate comments and it seems unfair to let them say things they wouldn’t in the presence of the enemy. My former boss was a big Bush basher and I had to let her know that I supported Bush. I had hoped we could talk about her view of his environmental policy, but she stopped talking about politics with me. Oh, well. I did discover another conservative on the other side of the war issue and we’d battle back and forth over history and intentions and send each other links of people that supported our positions, then attack the other person’s experts. Great fun. Too bad he moved on to another company. Work comes first, but when there’s time I love to mix it up with those around me. Hm. I wonder if that’s why they’re not inviting me out to lunch?

By the way, that Jewish Scouter I linked you to before. He’s a mediator, too. He came to my daughter’s Girl Scout meeting to talk about conflict resolution. I can’t even imagine those words you hinted at ever coming out of his mouth in private, much less in a professional setting. His job is all about getting people to agree on something. I can’t imagine browbeating works well in that situation, but that’s just my view.

You certainly handled that situation better than I would have. I know I would have messed with her head more than you did. Poor impulse control. That’s why I’m writing this post on company time instead of making pretty graphs. Hm. I really should get back to that.

By: micky2

micky2 — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:17:26 +0000

You’re full of it.
Play semantics if you want.
You’ve already come out on the short end of this debate by once again offering nothing more than platitudes , opinions and empty statements that hold no reputable context that can prove or portray anything

Leave me alone , leave them alone, bla bla.
Then why wont liberals just leave everyone the hell alone ?

By: Jersey McJones

Jersey McJones — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:06:24 +0000

“The fact is that you are wrong in your glorification of unions and moonbat professors.”

My what of what? My glorification?

The only thing I glorify is my family. All the rest can go each it and I. Just kidding. All the rest are just fine with me, as long as they leave me alone and I leave them alone. That’s what rights are all about, after all, right? Rights? Right?

JMJ

By: micky2

micky2 — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:38:51 +0000

That was just plain weak and stupid.
Who are you to judge on the validity or viability of an individual ?
Try going to a museum.
There can be no group without individuals.
But you can have individuals without groups.
As far as saying anything nice goes.
I compare your condition to Turrets syndrome.
Besides that, I could care less what anyone or institution judges my individualism.
Who cares.
The fact is that you are wrong in your glorification of unions and moonbat professors.

By: Jersey McJones

Jersey McJones — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:30:46 +0000

Chris, quick lesson in qualifications: Zinn and Woods are both Harvard/Columbia guys. The other guy I don’t know. So much for the leftist academy.

Micky, when the day comes by that some institution can successfully and persistently judge “any real sense of individualism or creativity,” I will personally say something nice about conservatism.

JMJ

By: micky2

micky2 — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:41:32 +0000

Let me tell you something Jersey, you’re wrong.
You could stand to learn something once in a while if you actually looked at hings from a perspective other than politics or a liberal ideological standpoint.
First of all , yes, unions do drive up wages. but mostly for those who have seniority and not any real sense of individualism or creativity. And unions also create C A P S !!!! for salaries and wages which is why I don’t work union houses.
In 1979 I did an ice carving for the Kona Hilton. It was a schooner with two masts that stood 6 feet tall and was 25 feet long and filled with seafood.
As a garde` mange I was being paid on union scale 16.50 an hour bucks an hour..
The whole piece took me 4 hours to make which grossed me 66.00 dollars.
The hotel charged the client 1300.00 for the ice carving as a buffet center piece.
The ice cost about 200.00 bucks. At a cost ratio of 33% to cover overhead including the cost of the ice the hotel was into the carving for about 400.00 + 66.00 for me.
I complained to the union that I was getting screwed. The hotel made off with 840.00 and I got a lousy 66.00. The union told me that in order to make things a little more fair they would pay me executive che salary at prorate which would elevate me to about 30.00 and hour. So instead of 66.00 I would of made 120.00.
I told them to go stuff themselves.
I carve ice now upon request and I get paid what I’m worth.
I get the 1300.00 dollars and pay for the ice.
Its not so much that union drive up wages as it is the fact that most union workers are not motivated to perform or hold a higher standard because no matter how screwed up their work is they have job security.
We don’t get much bang for our buck in union houses. So that is why the wages are considered high, simply because they don’t commensurate with the end or gross product.

JMJ:
“Cons have no corner on the good person market, Micky. They’re people just like you and me.”
BS !! Do some research once in a while

Its also a statistical fact that conservatives give more to charity than liberals do, mostly due to faith based initiatives.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: “For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice.”

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: “For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice.”

The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money. ”

JMJ:
“They’re people just like you and me.”
So what ?
Conservatives are better people.
How’s that for an opinion.
Its typical that a lib thinks we are all the same.

And as far as liberal indoctrination in our schools goes.
Any sane clear thinking person can recall hundreds of instances where professors and teachers have been accused and found responsible for liberal biased teachings. Its no secret.

http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2005/09/22/UWireDcBureau/Liberal.Professors.Outnumber.Conservatives.Study.Finds-994859.shtml

“”The American College Teacher,” based on a survey conducted by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute, found that roughly 52 percent of American college professors describe themselves as “far left” or “liberal,” while only 20 percent said they were “far right” or “conservative.”

The study, conducted every three years, offers a snapshot of college professors in the United States. Researchers asked 40,670 professors from across the country a range of questions regarding job satisfaction, their students and their personal beliefs.

Regarding political views, the findings suggest a shrinking middle ground among university faculty. Only 29 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as moderates, compared to 40 percent just 15 years ago. ”

Face it Jersey, you could stand to step away from your conservative derangement syndrome once in a while

By: chris naron

chris naron — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:48:37 +0000

You still haven’t gotten it Jersey. The fact is, liberal History teachers, for example, think there’s absolutely no problem with teaching Howard Zinn. It’s an accepted text no one but a few of us question. Bring in Larry Schweikart or Tom Woods and watch the fur fly.

By: Jersey McJones

Jersey McJones — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:41:32 +0000

Yes, Chris, I understood you. “As usual, Jeresey doesn’t understand a word. I didn’t say they were all moderates. I said they think they’re all moderates.” Got it. Had it. At least that’s what they tell you. Got it?

“You can’t understand what I read because you’re nearsighted.”

Funny. Now see, I thought that would be more of a problem is I was farsighted, or had some astigmatic problem with reading. Huh. Just goes to show…

“Liberal teachers believe only conservatives are unable to keep their politics in check.”

Now that’s funny man! You’re a conservative complaining about liberal teachers and exclaiming “Liberal teachers believe only conservatives are unable to keep their politics in check.” Man. You are funny. I’d love to have a drink (or ten) with you.

“When liberal teachers spout theirs, it’s because they think they’re right and no one has any business having an opinion that differs.”

Yes Chris. And if you remove the word “liberal” from that sentence, its exactly as true (for whatever that’s worth).

Micky,

“I am all to well aware of the constraints unions put on wages.”

Huh. What do they care being aware of something that isn’t true? Oh yeah, insane. And I thought unions drove up wages, and that was the whole beef with them. But no, apparently it’s about “merit pay” and “the right to work” (no right to privacy, healthcare, education - but you have a right to work!). Hey Micky - in Right to Work states people make a lot less than in most all the other states. Conservatism has here, once again and as usual, failed.

“Libs always take jobs that involve some sense of ego feeding that do no real good for society but only inflate their own self worth.”

Yeah. Like teaching, or performing social work, or laborers, or all the other sorts of people who are “liberals.” No. Conservatives live to give, baby! It’s all about their fellow man, the future for their kids! Cons have no corner on the good person market, Micky. They’re people just like you and me.

JMJ

By: micky2

micky2 — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:15:49 +0000

Not goofy at all.
I am all to well aware of the constraints unions put on wages. Thats why as a chef I chose not to work in union houses. Deviating from the recipe or system is discouraged and creativity takes a crap.
We get our own restaurants and spread common sense.
Conservatives are too smart to go into a classroom full of obnoxious narcissistic punks and get paid squat.
You’re rendidtion of my comment shows an incredicle lack of creativity. It practically doesnt make any sense or jive at all.
Libs always take jobs that involve some sense of ego feeding that do no real good for society but only inflate their own self worth.
Socially inept martyrs.

By: chris naron

chris naron — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:09:29 +0000

As usual, Jeresey doesn’t understand a word. I didn’t say they were all moderates. I said they think they’re all moderates. Huge difference. That’s what “myopic” means. You can’t understand what I read because you’re nearsighted. Liberal teachers believe only conservatives are unable to keep their politics in check. When liberal teachers spout theirs, it’s because they think they’re right and no one has any business having an opinion that differs.