unionfacts.com

[TheoPetro]

UnionFacts

I haven't seen this posted here before and there seems to be a lot of "this was my good experience" vs "this was my bad experience" stuff around here. This site provides a decent amount of information on individual unions. There is some really good info on EFCA in there too.

Enjoy

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
UnionFacts

I haven't seen this posted here before and there seems to be a lot of "this was my good experience" vs "this was my bad experience" stuff around here. This site provides a decent amount of information on individual unions. There is some really good info on EFCA in there too.

Enjoy

that site appears to be very biased, to say the least.

 

[fskimospy]

Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't see any bias in that site whatsoever. Nope, none at all. That strikes me as a clear, concise, unbiased way to learn facts about unions. Also, freerepublic.com is a great place to learn about the platform of the Democratic Party. And it turns out Microsoft has some great insight as to Apple products.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

Facts are facts son.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

Facts are facts son.

and your source is very lacking

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
UnionFacts

I haven't seen this posted here before and there seems to be a lot of "this was my good experience" vs "this was my bad experience" stuff around here. This site provides a decent amount of information on individual unions. There is some really good info on EFCA in there too.

Enjoy

that site appears to be very biased, to say the least.

The truth is biased. Saying unions are evil is being neutral.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

Facts are facts son.

/facepalm

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

Facts are facts son.

and your source is very lacking

What on there isnt true?

 

[fskimospy]

This is an obvious trolling thread.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

Facts are facts son.

and your source is very lacking

What on there isnt true?

I could give you a link to a white supremacist group's webpage with plenty of facts. Does that make it a good objective place to learn about blacks?

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

Facts are facts son.

and your source is very lacking

What on there isnt true?

I could give you a link to a white supremacist group's webpage with plenty of facts. Does that make it a good objective place to learn about blacks?

He said that my source was lacking facts. Im asking him to point out the inaccuracies on that site. My original post just said that it has a good amount of information on individual unions and I still think it does. You comment doesn't address the OP or his quote so im not really sure how you want me to respond to that.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

Facts are facts son.

and your source is very lacking

What on there isnt true?

I could give you a link to a white supremacist group's webpage with plenty of facts. Does that make it a good objective place to learn about blacks?

He said that my source was lacking facts. Im asking him to point out the inaccuracies on that site. My original post just said that it has a good amount of information on individual unions and I still think it does. You comment doesn't address the OP or his quote so im not really sure how you want me to respond to that.

What he's saying is that your site is not a good place for people looking for facts to go. I'm sure plenty of the information on it is accurate, but when a source is so blatantly (and frankly, hilariously) biased, it is impossible to know what is true, what are distortions/omissions, and what are flat out lies. Any person seeking to educate themselves on union relations should seek out an objective source.

The information on white supremacist sites may be largely accurate too, but no sane person looking for information on black people would go to them for the exact same reason.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

Facts are facts son.

and your source is very lacking

What on there isnt true?

I could give you a link to a white supremacist group's webpage with plenty of facts. Does that make it a good objective place to learn about blacks?

He said that my source was lacking facts. Im asking him to point out the inaccuracies on that site. My original post just said that it has a good amount of information on individual unions and I still think it does. You comment doesn't address the OP or his quote so im not really sure how you want me to respond to that.

What he's saying is that your site is not a good place for people looking for facts to go. I'm sure plenty of the information on it is accurate, but when a source is so blatantly (and frankly, hilariously) biased, it is impossible to know what is true, what are distortions/omissions, and what are flat out lies. Any person seeking to educate themselves on union relations should seek out an objective source.

The information on white supremacist sites may be largely accurate too, but no sane person looking for information on black people would go to them for the exact same reason.

Its nice in theory to have completely objective sources to look at but in reality (where most of us reside) you dont have those. Every one of them is biased in their own way so what a reasonably intelligent person would do (dont assume im accusing you of this) is to look at a bunch of sources and look at the information in aggregate and decide for themselves. This is just one more source that should be taken into account when forming an educated opinion.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus christ.

Nobody attempting to gain objective information on unions should even click on that link, it may infect your computer and make other sites more biased as well. I mean if you want to bash unions that's fine, but to claim that site as a good source for people just looking for information is a pretty horrific lie.

Facts are facts son.

and your source is very lacking

What on there isnt true?

I could give you a link to a white supremacist group's webpage with plenty of facts. Does that make it a good objective place to learn about blacks?

He said that my source was lacking facts. Im asking him to point out the inaccuracies on that site. My original post just said that it has a good amount of information on individual unions and I still think it does. You comment doesn't address the OP or his quote so im not really sure how you want me to respond to that.

information can be good or bad...so you were partially correct...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Its nice in theory to have completely objective sources to look at but in reality (where most of us reside) you dont have those. Every one of them is biased in their own way so what a reasonably intelligent person would do (dont assume im accusing you of this) is to look at a bunch of sources and look at the information in aggregate and decide for themselves. This is just one more source that should be taken into account when forming an educated opinion.

You are correct that every source has a bias, but it doesn't meant that all sources are worth your time to look at. Ones that are as ridiculously over the top as the one you linked sacrifice their credibility by doing so. For example, anyone looking to understand an issue should never go to Conservapedia.com.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Its nice in theory to have completely objective sources to look at but in reality (where most of us reside) you dont have those. Every one of them is biased in their own way so what a reasonably intelligent person would do (dont assume im accusing you of this) is to look at a bunch of sources and look at the information in aggregate and decide for themselves. This is just one more source that should be taken into account when forming an educated opinion.

You are correct that every source has a bias, but it doesn't meant that all sources are worth your time to look at. Ones that are as ridiculously over the top as the one you linked sacrifice their credibility by doing so. For example, anyone looking to understand an issue should never go to Conservapedia.com.

I guess thats a matter of opinion. I dont believe that it has sacrificed all of its credibility by being as over the top as it is. I think it should be looked at but take it with a grain of salt. To make a truly informed opinion you need to account for all sources. Because we cant do that we should account for as many as possible. This is just another one to factor in.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

I guess thats a matter of opinion. I dont believe that it has sacrificed all of its credibility by being as over the top as it is. I think it should be looked at but take it with a grain of salt. To make a truly informed opinion you need to account for all sources. Because we cant do that we should account for as many as possible. This is just another one to factor in.

I find it highly unlikely your intent by posting this thread was to make people aware of all the sources of information about unions that are available. Your OP contained no such caveat as 'this site is insanely biased' or 'take it with a grain of salt', you presented it as a good source for information. If someone is to look at a single site for a good source of information about unions, that's about the last one they should look at.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
UnionFacts

I haven't seen this posted here before and there seems to be a lot of "this was my good experience" vs "this was my bad experience" stuff around here. This site provides a decent amount of information on individual unions. There is some really good info on EFCA in there too.

Enjoy

that site appears to be very biased, to say the least.

Agreed. However, I'd love to see what if anything on there is "false".

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

I guess thats a matter of opinion. I dont believe that it has sacrificed all of its credibility by being as over the top as it is. I think it should be looked at but take it with a grain of salt. To make a truly informed opinion you need to account for all sources. Because we cant do that we should account for as many as possible. This is just another one to factor in.

I find it highly unlikely your intent by posting this thread was to make people aware of all the sources of information about unions that are available. Your OP contained no such caveat as 'this site is insanely biased' or 'take it with a grain of salt', you presented it as a good source for information. If someone is to look at a single site for a good source of information about unions, that's about the last one they should look at.

My intent was to provide another source that I hadn't seen around here. My OP didnt contain any caveat because its not my job to tell people how much faith they should put in any source. That judgment is left up to them, as it should be. I presented it as a good source of information because that is what it is. I didnt not make a judgment on the information in it all I said is that it contains a lot of info. Again if someone was to look at a single site for a good source of info about unions they are not trying to form an informed opinion.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
UnionFacts

I haven't seen this posted here before and there seems to be a lot of "this was my good experience" vs "this was my bad experience" stuff around here. This site provides a decent amount of information on individual unions. There is some really good info on EFCA in there too.

Enjoy

that site appears to be very biased, to say the least.

Agreed. However, I'd love to see what if anything on there is "false".

Come on, you know as well as Admejafuck that selected facts are used for a purpose, they may not be incorrect but the presentation IS incorrect.

Take the numbers from people NOT in a union that don't want to be in a union... Well ladifuckingda, THAT is a surprise, that it's not 100% of them i mean. Are there hardcore tests you have to go through in the US to join a fucking union? Yet it's presented as if people in general were against it.

That's an example, 82% don't want to be in a union is the headline.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

I guess thats a matter of opinion. I dont believe that it has sacrificed all of its credibility by being as over the top as it is. I think it should be looked at but take it with a grain of salt. To make a truly informed opinion you need to account for all sources. Because we cant do that we should account for as many as possible. This is just another one to factor in.

I find it highly unlikely your intent by posting this thread was to make people aware of all the sources of information about unions that are available. Your OP contained no such caveat as 'this site is insanely biased' or 'take it with a grain of salt', you presented it as a good source for information. If someone is to look at a single site for a good source of information about unions, that's about the last one they should look at.

My intent was to provide another source that I hadn't seen around here. My OP didnt contain any caveat because its not my job to tell people how much faith they should put in any source. That judgment is left up to them, as it should be. I presented it as a good source of information because that is what it is. I didnt not make a judgment on the information in it all I said is that it contains a lot of info. Again if someone was to look at a single site for a good source of info about unions they are not trying to form an informed opinion.

For information on immigration, visit stormfront, you'll get about the same stupid fucking results there as you get on this site.

Either you are completely fucked up in the head and don't get that halftruths and presented agendas do matter when you take in information or you know it and you're so daft you STILL don't get it.

So, fucked up in the head or daft?

 

[Jeffg010]

Funny how the left wing around here will dismiss any source without stating what is wrong with. If it is so bad then give me some facts, show me it is to be bad.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jeffg010
Funny how the left wing around here will dismiss any source without stating what is wrong with. If it is so bad then give me some facts, show me it is to be bad.

Partisan idiots don't look past anything, that is pretty much the point, you read what you find comforting considering what you have decided beforehand and that is IT.

I'm no leftwinger though, you don't have to be a leftwinger to understand that halftruths are halftruths if you have the ability to critically examine words instead of chanting slowly and daftly.

BTW, i presented an example a couple of posts above yours, i suppose reading isn't something you do?

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

I guess thats a matter of opinion. I dont believe that it has sacrificed all of its credibility by being as over the top as it is. I think it should be looked at but take it with a grain of salt. To make a truly informed opinion you need to account for all sources. Because we cant do that we should account for as many as possible. This is just another one to factor in.

I find it highly unlikely your intent by posting this thread was to make people aware of all the sources of information about unions that are available. Your OP contained no such caveat as 'this site is insanely biased' or 'take it with a grain of salt', you presented it as a good source for information. If someone is to look at a single site for a good source of information about unions, that's about the last one they should look at.

My intent was to provide another source that I hadn't seen around here. My OP didnt contain any caveat because its not my job to tell people how much faith they should put in any source. That judgment is left up to them, as it should be. I presented it as a good source of information because that is what it is. I didnt not make a judgment on the information in it all I said is that it contains a lot of info. Again if someone was to look at a single site for a good source of info about unions they are not trying to form an informed opinion.

Anyone who's been around here for any length of time knows your pro-management leanings. Your leanings are not news to anyone, we know already. Your intent is quite transparent.

I understand your rage that the UAW appears to have 'won". Get happy with it, because for the remainder of the 4 year term left, workers are going to win. It is what it is. Accept what you cannot change.

IMO, your displeasure may be premature. I don't expect either Chrysler of GM to pull out of bankruptcy. If for no other reason than the car market will not support all the car makers in existence today. That goes for both domestic and foreign. You may still get your wish though. But I've got to warn you, the pension funds are funded pretty well. Retired workers may not get thrown into the street like you feel they deserve. So prepare yourself.

It may take some time before the unwashed masses are finally taught a lesson. Final victory may take a while to get here.

Can you hold out until then?