Originally posted by: tk149
Workers goofing off on camera. Consistently. Somehow, this is a partisan attack because only Repubs like to watch their money being pissed away by a bailout. :roll:
I'm not the one sensationalizing an issue here. I saw a news report that asserted that some Ford employees are drinking their paid time away. Did I assume that most or all Ford employees are like this? NO. Is it a good assumption that the union would make it difficult to fire these guys? YES, If the UAW is anything like the union at the company I work at. That's why I mentioned the union.
You lash out at anyone who approaches your precious sacred cow. Did I blame the union? NO. I said it was a problem for the union and management.
Once again, since you apparently missed the point of my first post, let me restate it: you cannot make a valid argument by diversion.
Regardless of whether these employees are union or not, the question is simply are they representative of a substantial number of Ford workers, and if so, why the fvck are we bailing them out? That's the ONLY issue here.
Did you even try to argue about the issue at hand? NO. You simply attacked me. I personally don't care one way or the other about unions. I don't care about Ford. I do care about where my tax money is going.
The sheer amount of vitriol in your post tells me that you're incapable of arguing this rationally. Go look in the mirror if you want to see a tool. Your kind of thinking has a lot to do with what's wrong with this country.
You are not showing any understanding of the idea of the selective use of facts to make a partisan point.
When the government wanted to build support for invading Iraq, the amount of attention given to every anecdote, ever utterance, anything done by Iraq to justify viewing them as a threat was very high - in contrast to the many years, especially when we allied with them, when there was little attention paid.
The same technique applies constantly on many issues. If the president is pushing a tax cut, watch for every concern of the day to have some reference made to how tax cuts would help, watch for the anecdotes about anything supporting the tax cuts, like someone paying high taxes, to get attention. If the issue is the estate tax, watch for the anecdotes about some family losing a farm allegedly from the tax getting national attention.
What the 'just the facts' approach misses is that there are billions of facts, and the bias is not in the accuracy of the ones presented, but the selection process.
Because, as I said, the auto companies' problems are a national issue, some anti-union centers are exploiting the issue to score points against unions. You are falling for it.
Many workers in pretty much every industry can be caught wasting time sometimes. It's ripe for exploitation when singled out and publicized. It's not a very valid point.
So, with the public bailing out the car companies, there's a heightened sensitivity to any 'waste' by the workers. Suddenly it's all our business to micro manage them.
The thing is, it's very selective, and ultimately not too helpful - and IMO, a misguided campaign for a larger anti-union effort which is simply to help the rich, and hurt others.
You seem unfamiliar with the concept that those whose agenda is to help the rich and hurt others don't simply say that's what they're doing, and ask for more billions for the rich, and instead use propaganda that actually persuades many people, people like you, to tsk tks at those terrible unions and be willing to vote more against them.
Talk about vitriol and being a 'tool', you are the one to 'look in the mirror'.
I dind't say you are part of the effort to spread this propaganda, I said the effort is going on, and that you are falling for it. But you don't seem too able ot hear that.
The 'vitriol' you refer to is mostly your own reflected back. The word 'tool' was repeated after you first used it, to show you how you were talking. I've never initiated that word.
The passion against the lies and harmful agenda to hurt so many is what you also seem to mistake as vitriol.
Finally, on the issue of rational comments, you say you did not blame the unions, you said it was unions and management. I'd say the more accurate statement is that you did blame the unions, and say it was unions and management; and that it's primarily unions, since you are limiting your criticism of management to allowing unions to do wrong.
Cliffs: this is an anecdotal bit of information easily expoited for propaganda against unions, something you are falling for, unfortunately. Where are your posts on the problems of the wealthy, the problems of management, the problems of the right wing on these issues, to balance your comments about this union anecdote?
Facebook
Twitter