SELL AMERICAN !!!
- Thread starter La Treal
- Start date
- Status
[P]And Eric follows with his version of free speech Free only if I say so. Eric I believe you can come and go as you please just like RV4, Bob Owens and myself. This is not Plane Business and this is the United States of America. Say what you will but I would rather you not attempt to censor my reading.[/P]
[P][EM]No one has a right to obstruct another exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature. [/EM][/P]
[P][EM]The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.[/EM][/P]
[P][EM]No one has a right to obstruct another exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature. [/EM][/P]
[P][EM]The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.[/EM][/P]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 11:41:03 PM eolesen wrote:
Just when I thought it was safe to post to public boards again, AMFADave appears...
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yeah, now that AMFADave has appeared, this bulletin board will likely be shut down soon. Those that speak the truth really scare those that wish to conceal it.
----------------
On 9/27/2002 11:41:03 PM eolesen wrote:
Just when I thought it was safe to post to public boards again, AMFADave appears...
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yeah, now that AMFADave has appeared, this bulletin board will likely be shut down soon. Those that speak the truth really scare those that wish to conceal it.
Speech is only guaranteed to be free from government interference. Folks like the TWU, AMFA, PB, and USAviation are free to interfere all they want to.
[P][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.†The Constitution’s framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of [/SPAN][/EM][?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = FederalExpress/FedExSmartTag /][st1:fedexcommon ActionID=1][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]express[/SPAN][/EM][/st1:fedexcommon][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]ion were the hallmarks of a democratic society. [/SPAN][/EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma][?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice /][o][/o][/SPAN][/P]
[P][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]But historically, at times of national stress -- real or imagined -- First Amendment rights come under enormous pressure. During the Red Scare†of the early 1920s, thousands were deported for their political views. During the McCarthy period, the infamous blacklist ruined lives and careers. Today, the creators, producers and distributers of popular culture are being blamed for the nation’s deep social problems. Calls for censor[/SPAN][/EM][st1:fedexship ActionID=2][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]ship[/SPAN][/EM][/st1:fedexship][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma] threaten to erode free speech. [/SPAN][/EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma][o][/o][/SPAN][/P]
[P][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution[/SPAN][/EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma][o][/o][/SPAN][/P]
[P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]So you would have a [EM][SPAN style=FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]government of the people, by the people[/SPAN][/EM], for the people declared to be two sepa[/SPAN][st1:fedexrate ActionID=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]rate[/SPAN][/st1:fedexrate][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma] entities? Your statements concerning the rights of this message board to censor are correct. However, as you are well aware of the censorship at another message board caused user ship to decline.[o][/o][/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][o][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3] [/FONT][/o][/P]
fficeffice /][o][/o][/SPAN][/P][P][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]But historically, at times of national stress -- real or imagined -- First Amendment rights come under enormous pressure. During the Red Scare†of the early 1920s, thousands were deported for their political views. During the McCarthy period, the infamous blacklist ruined lives and careers. Today, the creators, producers and distributers of popular culture are being blamed for the nation’s deep social problems. Calls for censor[/SPAN][/EM][st1:fedexship ActionID=2][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]ship[/SPAN][/EM][/st1:fedexship][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma] threaten to erode free speech. [/SPAN][/EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma][o
][/o][/SPAN][/P][P][EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution[/SPAN][/EM][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma][o
][/o][/SPAN][/P][P][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]So you would have a [EM][SPAN style=FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]government of the people, by the people[/SPAN][/EM], for the people declared to be two sepa[/SPAN][st1:fedexrate ActionID=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma]rate[/SPAN][/st1:fedexrate][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma] entities? Your statements concerning the rights of this message board to censor are correct. However, as you are well aware of the censorship at another message board caused user ship to decline.[o
][/o][/SPAN][/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][o
][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3] [/FONT][/o][/P]It is obvious that AA can control, eliminate, terminate, free speech when it comes to internet bulletin boards. They simply remove proxy authority to company computers/servers and threaten those that use company time and equipment for unintended purposes.
I agree with Eric, that these public bulletin baords have a right to censor anything they wish, in addition I believe they have the right to revoke authority to express our opinions. The good news is this site appears to be untainted by corporate ties that PB experienced.
Eric is mistaken if he believes that a labor organization can interfere in free speech rights.
Check this:
http://www.laborinformation.com/united.htm
In this case, the defendants are sued as union officers who aided, abetted, instigated or directed a wrongful use of union power to deprive a member of his or her rights. Defendants are not being sued because they are officers who brought charges, but because they allegedly used their positions to bring charges which were designed to chill free speech rights.
I wonder what Eric meant by just when he thought is was safe in reference to public bulletin boards and AMFADave. Be careful, if AMFADave gets offended, we might all end up in a diversity hearing with our employers.
I agree with Eric, that these public bulletin baords have a right to censor anything they wish, in addition I believe they have the right to revoke authority to express our opinions. The good news is this site appears to be untainted by corporate ties that PB experienced.
Eric is mistaken if he believes that a labor organization can interfere in free speech rights.
Check this:
http://www.laborinformation.com/united.htm
In this case, the defendants are sued as union officers who aided, abetted, instigated or directed a wrongful use of union power to deprive a member of his or her rights. Defendants are not being sued because they are officers who brought charges, but because they allegedly used their positions to bring charges which were designed to chill free speech rights.
I wonder what Eric meant by just when he thought is was safe in reference to public bulletin boards and AMFADave. Be careful, if AMFADave gets offended, we might all end up in a diversity hearing with our employers.
Free speech only applies to state action (read: government).
If you say that private owners of a website or a labor union are taking away from your right to free speech, you sound uneducated.
If you say that private owners of a website or a labor union are taking away from your right to free speech, you sound uneducated.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/28/2002 7:05:50 PM Wild Onion wrote:
Free speech only applies to state action (read: government).
If you say that private owners of a website or a labor union are taking away from your right to free speech, you sound uneducated.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Uneducated Huh?
Why not try reading these:
http://www.laborinformation.com/united.htm
[blockquote]29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2) is intended to ensure that unions use democratic processes, and, consequently, grants every member of a labor organization . . . rights of freedom of speech and assembly . . . . Johnson v. Kay, 860 F.2d 529, 536-37 (2d Cir. 1988). [/blockquote]
I would rather SOUND uneducated than have it proven a fact!
[blockquote]Moreover, where a union's discipline involves charges that intertwine allegations of disruptive conduct and protected speech, the discipline as a whole is invalid under the LMRDA. See Petramale, 736 F.2d at 16, 18. Finally, a union official who aids abets, instigates, or directs a wrongful use of union power to deprive a member of his rights under § 101 may be held liable under § 102[.] Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, 605 F.2d 1228, 1246-7 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 (1980).[/blockquote]
Maybe you should EDUCATE YOURSELF before making public claims that another simply sounds uneducated.
----------------
On 9/28/2002 7:05:50 PM Wild Onion wrote:
Free speech only applies to state action (read: government).
If you say that private owners of a website or a labor union are taking away from your right to free speech, you sound uneducated.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Uneducated Huh?
Why not try reading these:
http://www.laborinformation.com/united.htm
[blockquote]29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2) is intended to ensure that unions use democratic processes, and, consequently, grants every member of a labor organization . . . rights of freedom of speech and assembly . . . . Johnson v. Kay, 860 F.2d 529, 536-37 (2d Cir. 1988). [/blockquote]
I would rather SOUND uneducated than have it proven a fact!
[blockquote]Moreover, where a union's discipline involves charges that intertwine allegations of disruptive conduct and protected speech, the discipline as a whole is invalid under the LMRDA. See Petramale, 736 F.2d at 16, 18. Finally, a union official who aids abets, instigates, or directs a wrongful use of union power to deprive a member of his rights under § 101 may be held liable under § 102[.] Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, 605 F.2d 1228, 1246-7 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 (1980).[/blockquote]
Maybe you should EDUCATE YOURSELF before making public claims that another simply sounds uneducated.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/28/2002 10:18:50 AM RV4 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 11:41:03 PM eolesen wrote:
Just when I thought it was safe to post to public boards again, AMFADave appears...
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yeah, now that AMFADave has appeared, this bulletin board will likely be shut down soon. Those that speak the truth really scare those that wish to conceal it.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I contributed to the debate. When someone like AMFADave proclaims himself to be a UNION ORGANIZER, it is kind of hard not to reply to his BS concerning RTW, and other conservative claptrap which is why unions came about anyway.
----------------
On 9/28/2002 10:18:50 AM RV4 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 11:41:03 PM eolesen wrote:
Just when I thought it was safe to post to public boards again, AMFADave appears...
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yeah, now that AMFADave has appeared, this bulletin board will likely be shut down soon. Those that speak the truth really scare those that wish to conceal it.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I contributed to the debate. When someone like AMFADave proclaims himself to be a UNION ORGANIZER, it is kind of hard not to reply to his BS concerning RTW, and other conservative claptrap which is why unions came about anyway.
Why do you not just state your position? Those that are for the liberal left wing agenda will applaud. The TWU members in TUL at AA are more interested in hunting and fishing than voting for the pure Democratic ticket. Many dues paying members in TUL have openly admitted that they vote for the issues, they hold dear. They live for their firearms and their conservative lifestyles. They claim to be good union men and women, however they vote right and pay the left. Does it really take every vote an individual casts to be Democrat to be a good union member?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/28/2002 11
44 PM j7915 wrote:
I contributed to the debate. When someone like AMFADave proclaims himself to be a UNION ORGANIZER, it is kind of hard not to reply to his BS concerning RTW, and other conservative claptrap which is why unions came about anyway.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think you should read a little history. It is only the Tulsa Local 514 members that have lived their entire life inside a 46 mile radius that believe unionism was formed to combat conservatives. Alhtough I will grant you this, when it comes to the TWU and their politics, it is easy to see why union men are confused about the true purpose of unionism.
Unions came about because of atrocious treatment of the working man. Men and children were getting killed at work and treated like slaves. Safety on the job did not exist.
The political aspect of unionism came about later. For instance, Right to Work was amendment to section 14 (B) of Taft-Hartley 1947, and happened over a half of century after the formation of unions.
[blockquote]
HOW AND WHY UNIONS ARE CREATED
Employees may unionize for a number of different reasons. The impetus is often nothing more than a desire to improve the compensation they receive for work that they may believe is undervalued. Poor job security, nepotism, discrimination, and the absence of opportunity for advancement are also frequent causes of employee unrest and interest in unionization.
Employee unionization in a particular workforce usually happens in one of two ways. The first is that the employees believe they are being treated unfairly or unreasonably by their employer and want to band together to exert greater influence over their wages, benefits, and working conditions. These employees may then either found a new labor union or organize to create a local affiliate of an established union.
The second way a labor union is created is when an existing union approaches the workers of a particular employer and encourages them to join the union, usually by promising job protection and expanded benefits.
[/blockquote]
J7915, please give me a few examples of unions forming for the purpose of combat against conservatives and their claptraps? Ever think maybe workers formed unions for the purposes mention above and then the union evolved into some political trojan horse for the Democratic Party?
----------------
On 9/28/2002 11
44 PM j7915 wrote: I contributed to the debate. When someone like AMFADave proclaims himself to be a UNION ORGANIZER, it is kind of hard not to reply to his BS concerning RTW, and other conservative claptrap which is why unions came about anyway.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think you should read a little history. It is only the Tulsa Local 514 members that have lived their entire life inside a 46 mile radius that believe unionism was formed to combat conservatives. Alhtough I will grant you this, when it comes to the TWU and their politics, it is easy to see why union men are confused about the true purpose of unionism.
Unions came about because of atrocious treatment of the working man. Men and children were getting killed at work and treated like slaves. Safety on the job did not exist.
The political aspect of unionism came about later. For instance, Right to Work was amendment to section 14 (B) of Taft-Hartley 1947, and happened over a half of century after the formation of unions.
[blockquote]
HOW AND WHY UNIONS ARE CREATED
Employees may unionize for a number of different reasons. The impetus is often nothing more than a desire to improve the compensation they receive for work that they may believe is undervalued. Poor job security, nepotism, discrimination, and the absence of opportunity for advancement are also frequent causes of employee unrest and interest in unionization.
Employee unionization in a particular workforce usually happens in one of two ways. The first is that the employees believe they are being treated unfairly or unreasonably by their employer and want to band together to exert greater influence over their wages, benefits, and working conditions. These employees may then either found a new labor union or organize to create a local affiliate of an established union.
The second way a labor union is created is when an existing union approaches the workers of a particular employer and encourages them to join the union, usually by promising job protection and expanded benefits.
[/blockquote]
J7915, please give me a few examples of unions forming for the purpose of combat against conservatives and their claptraps? Ever think maybe workers formed unions for the purposes mention above and then the union evolved into some political trojan horse for the Democratic Party?
Why Unions Love Big Government, High Taxes
The decline of unions in the private sector continues but those losses have been made up by major gains in the public sector, a development that comes as bad news for taxpayers.
During the 1950s unions represented around 30 percent of workers in America, but only five percent of government workers. Today there are 17 million union members who represent less than 15 percent of workers nationwide. Within that 15 percent, according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics, 32.4 percent of union members were in the public sector in 1983. By 2001, however, government unions had swelled to 25 percent, a full 7.2 million workers, and a whopping 44 percent of total union membership.
In other words, nearly half of the nation’s union members are government employees at some level. In California and 15 other states, government employees represent more than half of the total union membership. Union bosses, of course, would like to maintain this growth, which gives them a stake in the continued expansion of government.
Unions in the private sector must deal with the discipline of the market. Management of the American auto industry, for example, must compete with foreign firms. No union wage demand of the 1970s could change the reality that many American cars were of dubious quality while Japanese imports set new standards for craftsmanship and customer satisfaction. Americans began to prefer the Honda Accord over the Chrysler Cordoba. In the government sector it doesn’t work that way.
The government produces nothing that most citizens would be willing to buy in the marketplace but it does holds a monopoly on certain services. If one doesn’t care for the rude, glacially slow service at the post office, for example, one can’t simply walk out and patronize Jim’s Postal Service across the street. Neither can one find an alternative to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
More important, the government holds a monopoly on police power, and gets it money through taxes. If the government is to expand its programs, it will have to raise taxes. The political agenda of unions, with most of their membership in the government sector, has a vested interest in such expansion and the higher taxes that come with it. That is why unions are marshalling their considerable clout to oppose tax breaks and tax reductions. The California Teachers Association, the most powerful union in the Golden State, not only calls for more spending but is backing a bill that would expand their already pervasive power in the classroom.
Expanded government may secure more jobs for union members but does not guarantee better service for the public. Government programs are easy to start but notoriously hard to end, however inefficient and counterproductive. One way legislators can provide better service, at lower cost, is to privatize.
Some years ago, a California administration privatized the cleaning services for government buildings. But then the current administration reversed that, at double the cost to California taxpayers. That could be changed and this is an election year. Candidates will have to decide whose interests they want to represent. Union bosses, it might be recalled, are not subject to election by the public.
J7915, maybe unions are in politics to create more jobs? But just remember who is paying the salary of these workers when they are mostly Government workers. Due to the lobbying efforts of the AFL-CIO, the unionized government sector is the largest and fastest growing sector. The politcians are now paying off the AFL-CIO with jobs in the government. In other words, how much of your paycheck are you willing to give to employee thousands of unionized government workers? If you are one that believes economic growth is a direct result of consumption, think about what these government workers are producing that you or anyone else would consume. I wonder how many non-producing jobs we can afford to subsidize. It is like top-heavy management organized by labor. The WORKING MAN is now the employer for most unionized workers, and the union is representing who?
![b]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2FJUST+SOMETHING+WE+SHOULD+ALL+THINK+ABOUT%21%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F6.gif%27%5D+%5B%2Fb%5D&hash=f1ac778ccb2cd21b8f18d60144948035)
The decline of unions in the private sector continues but those losses have been made up by major gains in the public sector, a development that comes as bad news for taxpayers.
During the 1950s unions represented around 30 percent of workers in America, but only five percent of government workers. Today there are 17 million union members who represent less than 15 percent of workers nationwide. Within that 15 percent, according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics, 32.4 percent of union members were in the public sector in 1983. By 2001, however, government unions had swelled to 25 percent, a full 7.2 million workers, and a whopping 44 percent of total union membership.
In other words, nearly half of the nation’s union members are government employees at some level. In California and 15 other states, government employees represent more than half of the total union membership. Union bosses, of course, would like to maintain this growth, which gives them a stake in the continued expansion of government.
Unions in the private sector must deal with the discipline of the market. Management of the American auto industry, for example, must compete with foreign firms. No union wage demand of the 1970s could change the reality that many American cars were of dubious quality while Japanese imports set new standards for craftsmanship and customer satisfaction. Americans began to prefer the Honda Accord over the Chrysler Cordoba. In the government sector it doesn’t work that way.
The government produces nothing that most citizens would be willing to buy in the marketplace but it does holds a monopoly on certain services. If one doesn’t care for the rude, glacially slow service at the post office, for example, one can’t simply walk out and patronize Jim’s Postal Service across the street. Neither can one find an alternative to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
More important, the government holds a monopoly on police power, and gets it money through taxes. If the government is to expand its programs, it will have to raise taxes. The political agenda of unions, with most of their membership in the government sector, has a vested interest in such expansion and the higher taxes that come with it. That is why unions are marshalling their considerable clout to oppose tax breaks and tax reductions. The California Teachers Association, the most powerful union in the Golden State, not only calls for more spending but is backing a bill that would expand their already pervasive power in the classroom.
Expanded government may secure more jobs for union members but does not guarantee better service for the public. Government programs are easy to start but notoriously hard to end, however inefficient and counterproductive. One way legislators can provide better service, at lower cost, is to privatize.
Some years ago, a California administration privatized the cleaning services for government buildings. But then the current administration reversed that, at double the cost to California taxpayers. That could be changed and this is an election year. Candidates will have to decide whose interests they want to represent. Union bosses, it might be recalled, are not subject to election by the public.
J7915, maybe unions are in politics to create more jobs? But just remember who is paying the salary of these workers when they are mostly Government workers. Due to the lobbying efforts of the AFL-CIO, the unionized government sector is the largest and fastest growing sector. The politcians are now paying off the AFL-CIO with jobs in the government. In other words, how much of your paycheck are you willing to give to employee thousands of unionized government workers? If you are one that believes economic growth is a direct result of consumption, think about what these government workers are producing that you or anyone else would consume. I wonder how many non-producing jobs we can afford to subsidize. It is like top-heavy management organized by labor. The WORKING MAN is now the employer for most unionized workers, and the union is representing who?
You want to argue organized labor theory vs. practice?
Great. But open up a thread to do it.
You'd think y'all might have learned by now the ability to stay on-topic, rather than continuing to continually take over other threads...
Great. But open up a thread to do it.
You'd think y'all might have learned by now the ability to stay on-topic, rather than continuing to continually take over other threads...
[blockquote]
The good news is this site appears to be untainted by corporate ties that PB experienced.
[/blockquote]
Think twice. It is just infected by different ties to another large airline currently in bankruptcy...
[blockquote]
Be careful, if AMFADave gets offended, we might all end up in a diversity hearing with our employers.[/blockquote]
I find your threat offensive and inappropriate. Please stop.
The good news is this site appears to be untainted by corporate ties that PB experienced.
[/blockquote]
Think twice. It is just infected by different ties to another large airline currently in bankruptcy...
[blockquote]
Be careful, if AMFADave gets offended, we might all end up in a diversity hearing with our employers.[/blockquote]
I find your threat offensive and inappropriate. Please stop.
- Status
