Goonburger

by **Captain Walker** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:24 pm

A TNE sub-project managed by Lomo Taxual

http://www.theneweffort.com/front/columns/stupid-liberal-quote-of-the-moment

by **Dog-O-Tron 5000v2.0** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:34 am

40 OZ wrote:This is too soon after Mount Everest kid.

White people need to stop doing this type of shit. When inevitably some Wealthy White Child Prodigy goes to low earth orbit it is going to instantly start the race war, and brown people will just rightfully slaughter us all.

People like this is literally why the entire world hates our race.

by **Captain Walker** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:09 am

I could so easily make this an RSS feed.

by **Rocket** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:26 am

Please repost the one where the retard lib thinks that only 1% of the fed budget goes to welfare, etc.

by **lomo taxual** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:33 am

Rocket wrote:Please repost the one where the retard lib thinks that only 1% of the fed budget goes to welfare, etc.

I am looking for what percentage of our entire budget is spent on social programs, anyone?

This would include Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, any so-called "entitlement" programs, the nutjobs are always crying about.

I thought it was a mere 1% but I may have been wrong.

anyone?

Yeah maybe that should be next weeks quote because it wasnt up for that long and its god damn amazing

by **Dog-O-Tron 5000v2.0** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:33 pm

Oryx and Friends wrote:If you believe it is right for a nation to protect it's own interests over other peoples, then that's just an inherent difference in our viewpoints and there's no logical argument I can make with regards to that so I won't attempt to debate it.

by **lomo taxual** » Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:53 pm

sports promote tribalism and generate massive wealth, disproportionately taken from the poor, for non-productive members of society

sports fans are terrible people and should all be shot

by **lomo taxual** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:04 am

I used to routinely go to high school and not shower for days. I weighed 315 lbs. I would often wear brown dress shoes, tube socks, khacki shorts, and a flannel coat/jacket/shirt thing. I would sleep all day in class and not talk to anyone. Sometimes I would wear sandals and the kids around me would complain about some horrific smell forcing its way into their noses. They never caught on because it was so foul they would've never guessed it was feet.

When I got home I would do nothing but look at porn and play Diablo 2. Then I would go to bed and get up late for school.

by **Louise Beaver 2020** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:09 am

lomo taxual wrote:
I used to routinely go to high school and not shower for days. I weighed 315 lbs. I would often wear brown dress shoes, tube socks, khacki shorts, and a flannel coat/jacket/shirt thing. I would sleep all day in class and not talk to anyone. Sometimes I would wear sandals and the kids around me would complain about some horrific smell forcing its way into their noses. They never caught on because it was so foul they would've never guessed it was feet.

When I got home I would do nothing but look at porn and play Diablo 2. Then I would go to bed and get up late for school.

UGH

by **afrika obamaataa** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:18 am

RandBot 2020 wrote:
lomo taxual wrote:
I used to routinely go to high school and not shower for days. I weighed 315 lbs. I would often wear brown dress shoes, tube socks, khacki shorts, and a flannel coat/jacket/shirt thing. I would sleep all day in class and not talk to anyone. Sometimes I would wear sandals and the kids around me would complain about some horrific smell forcing its way into their noses. They never caught on because it was so foul they would've never guessed it was feet.

When I got home I would do nothing but look at porn and play Diablo 2. Then I would go to bed and get up late for school.

UGH

lomo life

by **Louise Beaver 2020** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:21 am

Did this giant fat faggot also complain about being 'harrassed' at school?

Cause goddamn no way would someone like that get through my school without both the other students AND the teachers telling him to fucking shower, change his clothes or don't bother showing up to class (OR ELSE)

by **lomo taxual** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:24 am

Wait forgot this part :lol:

This is me. Christmas 2003. Not long after I graduated.

by **Louise Beaver 2020** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:31 am

No-one knew the terrible stench was coming from me

by **Captain Walker** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 4:27 pm

Mr.Graves wrote:Please, please read all of this: I am moved by a deep concern that you understand me precisely.

Please understand that I wish to convey my reply with as much empathy and kindness to a stranger as I am capable of, as I try to be a fairly altruistic and deeply compassionate person. The next time you want to make a post like this, rethink it. Or accept that you will get called out for your logic flaws and incorrect facts. I mean to say this in the most polite way I can; when you post a link to an article that actually confirms you are wrong; or at the very best grasping at straws to find an excuse to satisfy your ego and insult people who do not share the same beliefs as you... well, I just don't know what to do with you. If I can in any way fairly express to you that using straw man arguments, character assassinations (even upon an organization rather than individual) or what is essentially a series of ad hominem attacks, no matter how convoluted they are in reaching that end, simply don't belong in the realm of productive and scientific discourse between civil and grown adults. We are both adults, and I have invested a fair bit of energy in my reply because your growth as a person means very much to me. I want to help us both become better people. I really do.

The issue was quite clearly whether St. John's Wort is a placebo. It's readily apparent from a massive variety of sources (including the exact link you posted, but obviously didn't read) that St. John's Wort is shown to be effective in treating minor depression, variable and contestable results in treating moderate depression, and ineffective in treating major depression.

Thus, not a placebo. No one was arguing, or discussing whether it was 'kinda insane' to be taking it because it had already been covered that seeing a physician was a given. It can be reasonably expected that an individual old enough to have an account here should be responsible enough to consult a physician in respects to any combination of medicines or treatments they may take, prescribed or nature-based. To be honest, your post makes no sense, as it takes the issue in a direction people weren't discussing, and then insults people... for things they didn't say.

No one was arguing about it being safe to take, or whether you could overdose on it or not. What is said, on the exact link you posted:

This is all information from the link you provided. If you want to show the part where the NiH says you are insane to take it, and that you can idiotically overdose on it, please do so. Note, please, that out of fairness and intellectual honesty, I show information that is both positive and negative about the claims I espouse are truths.

So here's the thing, asshole. You are an asshole. This is not debatable You intrude- yes, I fucking say intrude, because you actually add nothing of value- on a conversation, in order to attempt a drive-by self wank on someone, ever sure you probably won't even glance at your post again, most likely in the faint hope that you can convince yourself when no one responds to it, you're correct. The idea of flinging yourself unexpectedly upon an innocent passer by empowers you, makes you feel good, and strong, and better than them.

Now, I seriously just don't even care enough to go back far enough to track down every single word in this thread that had come out of the few posts about the topic, but it was quite simple; someone said it was placebo, I provided a link showing it wasn't; they said very simply that the new information altered their original assertion.

To be honest, they were the good, awesome, kick ass kind of sceptic. The kind we should encourage, and celebrate, and hold up as examples of people that advance knowledge for all of us. And not because they agreed with me. Because they cared more about the truth, than being right. They put the quest for truth before their ego's desire to flatter itself with the illusion it is always right. They had the strength of character that so many fail to achieve, regardless of where they stand on beliefs and science- that virtue that understands that being wrong can be awesome and it's ok to be mistaken and it's not a failure but a method of growth.

Not like you. In your dumb, backwoods, American-podunk, 'It's Friday night and there's nothing to do, want to see how far I can stick this corn cob up my ass if we can't find some teeny boppers to feed cheap wine coolers to and date rape' inbred hick mind, the harder you tell someone they are wrong, the more factual your points are. I'm trying to speak to you in your broken Neanderthal language, here. See, I care enough to try to learn your dialect, to try to communicate through your tribal idiosyncrasies and connect with you. I really do.

So you really are free to be an asshole all you want, but you seem to operate on the assumption that once you've aimed for the cheek and flung your rotten sputum in someone's direction, you have achieved some kind of primitive erotic victory. It doesn't work that way, though. You don't get to flaunt giant logic flaws around the grown ups and expect not to be called out on it. But let's face it: if you didn't want it, you wouldn't dress that way in this part of town. And maybe you are the new girl in class, but just because you are enamoured with the sight of your golf-ball-cut-in-half-one-inch-nubs in the cheap flimsy bedazzler covered sparkly and shimmering training bra you secretly bought from K-mart and hid from your drunken stepfather because you want to know if his feelings are real and true and he'll whisk you away from this trailer park that smells like wet dog or you won't let him do that to you again because walking was awkward afterwards, well, that doesn't mean the rest of us want to see you flicking cold water down the front of your top and 'accidentally' dropping your pen so we have to endure the stretch-marked cacophony of leathery flesh flaring baboon-like under a cheap pair of stained jogging pants with 'DIRTY GIRL' scrawled in glitter across the ass.

In short, you are the intellectual version of white trash, lacking a complete set of teeth, sitting on your front porch in your wife beater and boxers on a Monday morning and wearing your male pattern baldness like an article of clothing while you complain about the illegal immigrants being parasites draining the freedom from 'your' country. You are the the billowing, buttery, bulging beer gut on the broken, bloated, bulbous juggalette of life; the sweat beading on your thick caked make up the only sign you are even aware another doomed, mewling trailerbaby has writhed it's way free from the labyrinthine labia, flesh folds and scattered wads and clumps of rotting toilet paper dotting your massive unwashed trucker bucket and splashed itself against the floor of the Wal-Mart aisle you are trundling down with the frenetic, fevered fury of an addict in your mad quest for spray cheese in a can and cheap jars of family sized pickled eggs on sale because they past their expiry date two weeks ago. If polite discourse and common decency was ever a sweet, naive, good girl with dreams of leaving this small town full of small people with small minds and making it big in Hollywood, her name written in the sky, the flashbulbs and crowding reporters everywhere she goes, always smiling, everyone wanting to be her, you are ten years of crystal meth, the slow descent into broken hopes and denial, the putrid crust of sugary black abscesses silhouetting the receding gums that slurp and slop and suck and slobber and slosh and slide and just try not to think about it,it will be over soon, it's not really a pitbull, no one will recognize you in the video, you will still be a star, you will still be famous, everyone will love you, you just need to make a little money so you can feel good again, just do it just do it be a star fastfastfastgetitoverwithsoyoucanfeelgoodagain.

Shall I explain to you the logic flaw apparent in making the assumption that if a source is incorrect on one point, it is fair to assert it is automatically incorrect on all other points you disagree with? Never mind, you failed to even provide proof of the assertions you made. Instead, you attacked straw men; you resorted to what was essentially character assassination without even giving an avenue for your points about the Mayo clinic; your claims are unverifiable and vague because it is the only way you can be safe in them; if you gave specific points they could be refuted, and that would provide avenue for you to be exposed as how completely full of shit you are.

You are an asshole. This is without question. Carl Sagan would openly convert to whatever religion would allow him to pray for a higher power to give intense, stabbing facial cancers to the children of whoever you care about. You are the abortion that makes the Pope shrug his shoulders and raise his palms up in a comical gesture of 'whaddayagonnado?'. Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy could work together for a thousand years to collaborate in creating a work unparalleled in both length and descriptive genius and still fail to write enough about the suffering you deserve. Your brief, primitive need to wank your ego all over others, to show everybody just how smart you are and just how stupid anyone who dares disagree with you is, is the greatest of crimes: it is boring.

You are not a skeptic. Or scientific. You are the unwashed cock that rubs itself against the boot that crushes the face of humanity, forever.

In short, the next time you are lying in your cot, waiting to fling your rotten, ropey excretions on others, consider that someone with infinitely better taste in wine may take note, and have a few words for you.

by **B.F. Skinner** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:35 am

Recently I've been hearing news about how a good number of businesses have not been hiring people in spite of the fact that they're making profits. That inspired me to make this thread that I originally posted in Ask/Tell and was moved to the business subforum. I thought that it was sickening that these certain corporations would rather sit on a pile of money instead of hiring people who have been out of work for a year or more.

I was surprised that a fair number of posters in the thread answered that it is not necessarily in the best interest of companies to hire people with the money that they're making. I suppose it makes sense from a purely capitalist perspective, but it doesn't sit right with me because of my political views. To put it bluntly, I feel that anyone with a conscience would use the money to do the right thing in hiring people instead of feeding profit margins and overworking current employees.

I ask this forum: do businesses have a moral obligation to hire people? If libertarians believe that the private sector will provide help that the government should not, then why is it excusable to defend this practice? What, if anything, should be done?

by **Jared Loughner** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:44 am

B.F. Skinner wrote:
Recently I've been hearing news about how a good number of businesses have not been hiring people in spite of the fact that they're making profits. That inspired me to make this thread that I originally posted in Ask/Tell and was moved to the business subforum. I thought that it was sickening that these certain corporations would rather sit on a pile of money instead of hiring people who have been out of work for a year or more.

I was surprised that a fair number of posters in the thread answered that it is not necessarily in the best interest of companies to hire people with the money that they're making. I suppose it makes sense from a purely capitalist perspective, but it doesn't sit right with me because of my political views. To put it bluntly, I feel that anyone with a conscience would use the money to do the right thing in hiring people instead of feeding profit margins and overworking current employees.

I ask this forum: do businesses have a moral obligation to hire people? If libertarians believe that the private sector will provide help that the government should not, then why is it excusable to defend this practice? What, if anything, should be done?

Companies do not have a moral obligation to do any thing except make money, thrive and survive. They only hire those who help them meet these goals.

What should be done?
Cut down the amount of legal red tape needed to hire some one. That the highest cost of hiring someone. The other issue is even with a bigger talent pool to draw from, it being a buyer's market for employers, just the sheer amount of resumes that go up make it even harder to find a new candidate. So many people say fuck it, we ain't hiring. As much as the private sector likes looking for a good deal and making money, they value avoiding head aches from tedious work and inconvenience just as much.

by **B.F. Skinner** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:55 am

BrokenToad wrote:
B.F. Skinner wrote:
Recently I've been hearing news about how a good number of businesses have not been hiring people in spite of the fact that they're making profits. That inspired me to make this thread that I originally posted in Ask/Tell and was moved to the business subforum. I thought that it was sickening that these certain corporations would rather sit on a pile of money instead of hiring people who have been out of work for a year or more.

I was surprised that a fair number of posters in the thread answered that it is not necessarily in the best interest of companies to hire people with the money that they're making. I suppose it makes sense from a purely capitalist perspective, but it doesn't sit right with me because of my political views. To put it bluntly, I feel that anyone with a conscience would use the money to do the right thing in hiring people instead of feeding profit margins and overworking current employees.

I ask this forum: do businesses have a moral obligation to hire people? If libertarians believe that the private sector will provide help that the government should not, then why is it excusable to defend this practice? What, if anything, should be done?

Companies do not have a moral obligation to do any thing except make money, thrive and survive. They only hire those who help them meet these goals.

What should be done?
Cut down the amount of legal red tape needed to hire some one. That the highest cost of hiring someone. The other issue is even with a bigger talent pool to draw from, it being a buyer's market for employers, just the sheer amount of resumes that go up make it even harder to find a new candidate. So many people say fuck it, we ain't hiring. As much as the private sector likes looking for a good deal and making money, they value avoiding head aches from tedious work and inconvenience just as much.

You're presuming too much by assuming that government isn't the answer, though.

Government is absolutely the answer here. The Government can hire people to do necessary work that private business doesn't handle well and which carries significant positive externalities, like infrastructure and beautification. The Government can adopt fiscal and monetary policies that discourage firms and individuals from simply parking their money. And the Government can adopt taxation strategies that move resources from people that park their income to people that consume their income. ALL of these things are absolutely possible, and they're things that only a government can do.

That said, I wouldn't go discounting the value of assigning blame where it's due. It's too easy for those with wealth and privilege to find reasons to blame the various crises on those WITHOUT those things. They're granted too much latitude and authority as it is, and deserve to have their unearned aura of competence and superiority knocked down a bit. We'd all be better off if the prognostications of Wall Street were taken with a big grain of salt.

by **lomo taxual** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:46 am

B.F. Skinner wrote:
Recently I've been hearing news about how a good number of businesses have not been hiring people in spite of the fact that they're making profits. That inspired me to make this thread that I originally posted in Ask/Tell and was moved to the business subforum. I thought that it was sickening that these certain corporations would rather sit on a pile of money instead of hiring people who have been out of work for a year or more.

I was surprised that a fair number of posters in the thread answered that it is not necessarily in the best interest of companies to hire people with the money that they're making. I suppose it makes sense from a purely capitalist perspective, but it doesn't sit right with me because of my political views. To put it bluntly, I feel that anyone with a conscience would use the money to do the right thing in hiring people instead of feeding profit margins and overworking current employees.

I ask this forum: do businesses have a moral obligation to hire people? If libertarians believe that the private sector will provide help that the government should not, then why is it excusable to defend this practice? What, if anything, should be done?

haha this is a good one. I think I might have to make it this weeks quote

by **B.F. Skinner** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:20 pm

Destroyed the auto industry
Oh this is one of my favourite misconceptions that gets trolled out by anti-union sorts, essentially the workers for the Big 3 American auto-companies had some of the best negotiated deals in the US, the big 3 were(are) huge and for decades occupied the spot of the top 3 sellers in the world with only each other as the real competition.

This however has changed, the Big 3 were so assured of their dominance that they never adapted to the desires of the market nor to international regulations and lost their place in the big 3 internationally and for the first time an international company is one of the biggest 3 manufacturers in the US (Toyota).

This stems from the fact that the Big3 continued to make SUVs and other high emission vehicles in the face of rising gas prices and growing concern over global warning because it was easier to just lobby Washington to not put up gas taxes and to not introduce environmental standards, they in fact sued California in 2008 in regards to the emission standards brought in by the state. It is now getting to the point where many American made cars are illegal in some countries/regions to drive due their environmental impact. Is it any wonder that the Big 3 are suffering when competing against the more fuel efficient and less polluting cars made by foreign companies.

But apparently this is all the fault of the union workers on the assembly line, not the executives or the engineers who commissioned and designed the crappy cars no-one wants to buy any more.

so you see it is because global warming that us auto makers are in the shits

by **lomo taxual** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:15 pm

B.F. Skinner wrote:
Destroyed the auto industry
Oh this is one of my favourite misconceptions that gets trolled out by anti-union sorts, essentially the workers for the Big 3 American auto-companies had some of the best negotiated deals in the US, the big 3 were(are) huge and for decades occupied the spot of the top 3 sellers in the world with only each other as the real competition.

This however has changed, the Big 3 were so assured of their dominance that they never adapted to the desires of the market nor to international regulations and lost their place in the big 3 internationally and for the first time an international company is one of the biggest 3 manufacturers in the US (Toyota).

This stems from the fact that the Big3 continued to make SUVs and other high emission vehicles in the face of rising gas prices and growing concern over global warning because it was easier to just lobby Washington to not put up gas taxes and to not introduce environmental standards, they in fact sued California in 2008 in regards to the emission standards brought in by the state. It is now getting to the point where many American made cars are illegal in some countries/regions to drive due their environmental impact. Is it any wonder that the Big 3 are suffering when competing against the more fuel efficient and less polluting cars made by foreign companies.

But apparently this is all the fault of the union workers on the assembly line, not the executives or the engineers who commissioned and designed the crappy cars no-one wants to buy any more.

so you see it is because global warming that us auto makers are in the shits

Toyota spends $40 an hour per worker on their assembly line. (Not pure wage, just total cost)

GM spends $80

Clearly this has nothing to do with unions :roll:

I dont understand how the goon mind works. I dont get why this goon even has an opinion on the decline of the US auto industry. I really want to know how he formed his opinion on the issue. Did he look at any facts? Did he read any articles? How did he reach his conclusions?

by **birdfucker.mp3** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:38 pm

lomo taxual wrote:I really want to know how he formed his opinion on the issue. Did he look at any facts? Did he read any articles? How did he reach his conclusions?

"Hm, what should I post that will maximize the amount of respect I can get from D&D? No one likes me in real life, so I shall adopt whatever opinions or viewpoints may be necessary to fit in online. After years of regurgitating the same ten talking points over and over, they will become as true and meaningful to me as they would if I had actually gleaned them from a lifetime of experience."

by **birdfucker.mp3** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:44 pm

birdfucker.mp3 wrote:
lomo taxual wrote:I really want to know how he formed his opinion on the issue. Did he look at any facts? Did he read any articles? How did he reach his conclusions?

"Hm, what should I post that will maximize the amount of respect I can get from D&D? No one likes me in real life, so I shall adopt whatever opinions or viewpoints may be necessary to fit in online. After years of regurgitating the same ten talking points over and over, they will become as true and meaningful to me as they would if I had actually gleaned them from a lifetime of experience."

This is also how TNE works for a lot of people, by the way.
TNE DYNAMICS

by **Jared Loughner** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:01 pm

B.F. Skinner wrote:
BrokenToad wrote:
B.F. Skinner wrote:
Recently I've been hearing news about how a good number of businesses have not been hiring people in spite of the fact that they're making profits. That inspired me to make this thread that I originally posted in Ask/Tell and was moved to the business subforum. I thought that it was sickening that these certain corporations would rather sit on a pile of money instead of hiring people who have been out of work for a year or more.

I was surprised that a fair number of posters in the thread answered that it is not necessarily in the best interest of companies to hire people with the money that they're making. I suppose it makes sense from a purely capitalist perspective, but it doesn't sit right with me because of my political views. To put it bluntly, I feel that anyone with a conscience would use the money to do the right thing in hiring people instead of feeding profit margins and overworking current employees.

I ask this forum: do businesses have a moral obligation to hire people? If libertarians believe that the private sector will provide help that the government should not, then why is it excusable to defend this practice? What, if anything, should be done?

Companies do not have a moral obligation to do any thing except make money, thrive and survive. They only hire those who help them meet these goals.

What should be done?
Cut down the amount of legal red tape needed to hire some one. That the highest cost of hiring someone. The other issue is even with a bigger talent pool to draw from, it being a buyer's market for employers, just the sheer amount of resumes that go up make it even harder to find a new candidate. So many people say fuck it, we ain't hiring. As much as the private sector likes looking for a good deal and making money, they value avoiding head aches from tedious work and inconvenience just as much.

You're presuming too much by assuming that government isn't the answer, though.

Government is absolutely the answer here. The Government can hire people to do necessary work that private business doesn't handle well and which carries significant positive externalities, like infrastructure and beautification. The Government can adopt fiscal and monetary policies that discourage firms and individuals from simply parking their money. And the Government can adopt taxation strategies that move resources from people that park their income to people that consume their income. ALL of these things are absolutely possible, and they're things that only a government can do.

That said, I wouldn't go discounting the value of assigning blame where it's due. It's too easy for those with wealth and privilege to find reasons to blame the various crises on those WITHOUT those things. They're granted too much latitude and authority as it is, and deserve to have their unearned aura of competence and superiority knocked down a bit. We'd all be better off if the prognostications of Wall Street were taken with a big grain of salt.

Guess where I got the idea of why during a recession the work load of sorting being increased by volume through applications makes it harder for employers to search for candidates despite it being a buyer's market for employers, you SA roleplaying goon fucker.

by **Jared Loughner** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:15 pm

lomo taxual wrote:
B.F. Skinner wrote:
Destroyed the auto industry
Oh this is one of my favourite misconceptions that gets trolled out by anti-union sorts, essentially the workers for the Big 3 American auto-companies had some of the best negotiated deals in the US, the big 3 were(are) huge and for decades occupied the spot of the top 3 sellers in the world with only each other as the real competition.

This however has changed, the Big 3 were so assured of their dominance that they never adapted to the desires of the market nor to international regulations and lost their place in the big 3 internationally and for the first time an international company is one of the biggest 3 manufacturers in the US (Toyota).

This stems from the fact that the Big3 continued to make SUVs and other high emission vehicles in the face of rising gas prices and growing concern over global warning because it was easier to just lobby Washington to not put up gas taxes and to not introduce environmental standards, they in fact sued California in 2008 in regards to the emission standards brought in by the state. It is now getting to the point where many American made cars are illegal in some countries/regions to drive due their environmental impact. Is it any wonder that the Big 3 are suffering when competing against the more fuel efficient and less polluting cars made by foreign companies.

But apparently this is all the fault of the union workers on the assembly line, not the executives or the engineers who commissioned and designed the crappy cars no-one wants to buy any more.

so you see it is because global warming that us auto makers are in the shits

Toyota spends $40 an hour per worker on their assembly line. (Not pure wage, just total cost)

GM spends $80

Clearly this has nothing to do with unions

I dont understand how the goon mind works. I dont get why this goon even has an opinion on the decline of the US auto industry. I really want to know how he formed his opinion on the issue. Did he look at any facts? Did he read any articles? How did he reach his conclusions?

No idea. The only thing I can conclude why unions formed in the US in the first place was due to the "make obscene amounts of money quickly by fucking everyone else over" management style the industrialists had. It got so unfair, the workers eventually said "fuck it, not taking it anymore" and decided to fight back. Sometimes with violence. Now because of that unfairness to begin with, unions formed and now business has to compete with unions in an adversarial relationship. Meaning each side is in constant battle to get as much as they can get from the other side, despite how badly the other side gets fucked over. Due to this, the price went up and now GM and the US automobile industry lost their ass. It did not help they were trying to scram the consumers as well, trying to shovel off shit and try to sell and pass it off as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The only reason the American automobile industry tried to shape up was due to the Japanese who actually listened to an American preaching that quality control, customer service and sticking to a long term plan might be good for business, which GM scoffed at.

According to NPR about say 2008, they ran a program on Japanese car companies opening factories in the US. According to the report, the management does not deal with the threat of unions forming in America. Why? Because they treat them fairly. Sure they get treated accordingly as their role as workers but the management doesn't try to fuck em over just cause they can. Seems being a decent person to those you depend on to make you money, seems to be profitable and a great way to be competitive.

by **sl -F** » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:52 pm

BrokenToad wrote:According to NPR about say 2008, they ran a program on Japanese car companies opening factories in the US. According to the report, the management does not deal with the threat of unions forming in America. Why? Because they treat them fairly. Sure they get treated accordingly as their role as workers but the management doesn't try to fuck em over just cause they can. Seems being a decent person to those you depend on to make you money, seems to be profitable and a great way to be competitive.

In the places where Japanese companies do manufacturing (The South, and formerly at the NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA), they also benefited from either no existing manufacturing operations to breed entitlement, or an operation that was shut down and made the unemployed workers willing (read: desperate) to work in the Japanese style.

PS: blame marketing and management for SUV production . Management won't listen to an engineer when he says that SUVs are a bad thing to build in 2007, for the same reason you wouldn't ask spergs about any other fashion choice.

by **B.F. Skinner** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:04 am

On Propostion 8 being overturned in California:

Goon 1

(Youtube - It's Raining Men)
This is today's official theme song.

(ps: he said yes)

Goon 2

Congrats! I'm pretty excited about this ruling and the potential it has. I hope I someday have a gay child who will get married if they feel like it.

by **veteran of forum wars** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:06 am

My signature is now more relevant than ever.

by **Jared Loughner** » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:05 am

sl -F wrote:
BrokenToad wrote:According to NPR about say 2008, they ran a program on Japanese car companies opening factories in the US. According to the report, the management does not deal with the threat of unions forming in America. Why? Because they treat them fairly. Sure they get treated accordingly as their role as workers but the management doesn't try to fuck em over just cause they can. Seems being a decent person to those you depend on to make you money, seems to be profitable and a great way to be competitive.

In the places where Japanese companies do manufacturing (The South, and formerly at the NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA), they also benefited from either no existing manufacturing operations to breed entitlement, or an operation that was shut down and made the unemployed workers willing (read: desperate) to work in the Japanese style.

PS: blame marketing and management for SUV production . Management won't listen to an engineer when he says that SUVs are a bad thing to build in 2007, for the same reason you wouldn't ask spergs about any other fashion choice.

I can see how they would be opportunistic the way you mentioned, and would not put it past them. If what the NPR show matches up (and not just PR for the company) then good for them. If not, then pretty much going end up with a union forming sooner or later.
What the heck is the Japanese style of work by the way, besides work till you possibly die of exhaustion?

The blame on SUVs can be pinned on loads of people, including the consumers.

by **Captain Walker** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:53 pm

I think anyone that attempts to defend allowing religoin into government is already shown to have a vested interest in doing so and is almost always required to be dismissed from any form of intellectual conversation.

by **ironic anime avatar** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:51 am

Please government I don't like all these rights it's too complicated take them from me I don't need the pressure anymore

Patter Song wrote:The Proposition system has been a bust since it was instituted a century ago. In a representative democracy, it's not my job as a citizen to legislate. It's my job to choose people to legislate for me. I don't want to legislate! I'm not qualified! Nor are almost all of the rest of the electorate. Hospitals don't put which procedures they're going to use up for popular vote. Firefighters don't put which buildings they extinguish first up for popular vote. Why the fuck should I as a citizen be forced to do my elected representative's job for him?

Goonburger

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Re: Stupid Liberal Quote of the Week^H^H^H^HMoment

Who is online

Who is online