A sign of things to come? Maybe so. Between this and London, it looks like the natives are getting restless.
Plenty of non union unemployed workers willing to cross picket lines.
There is a big difference between London and the U.S.
We have a better supply of self defense weapons.
I hope I'm wrong. Do you really think sabotage is a legitimate way to handle a labor dispute? I know a little bit about the CWA and wouldn't put it past them. But they are basically endangering people whose service is interrupted. What if they did it in your neighborhood and you were unable to call 911 to save a family member?
As for London, this is nothing but mass theft. And it isn't even theft from huge, "evil" corporations, but from middle-class shop keepers, most of whom struggle to get by. Even the local people in these areas -- many of them black, Turkish and other minorities -- are calling the rioters nothing but thieves. I wonder how you'd feel if rioters from the sprawling DC ghetto went into your neighborhood and sacked your house and set it on fire. Bet you'd be singin' a different tune then!
...but let's be perfectly clear about this. Why is sabotage NOT a legitimate way to handle a labor dispute? Because of the destruction of private property? Wasn't this whole economic mess caused by banks fucking up the economy, bribing politicians to steal the personal property of tax payers to bail them out, and then letting banks rob people of personal property by throwing them out on the street? If the law doesn't apply to them, why should it apply to anyone?
I certainly hope nobody was harmed by the disrubtion of 911 service, but hey, if you want to make an omelette...besides, it sounds a lot like corporate propaganda to me. It's not like Verizon didn't recently come under fire for dropping hundreds of 911 calls. This accusation may be more about covering their own ass than anything else.
http://www.wirelessweek.com/News/2011/02/Policy-and-IndustryFCC-Verizon-Dropped-911-Calls-Snowstorm-Government/
In London, this isn't about mass theft. It's outrage from impoverished locals who are upset that the police blew a guy's head off. I don't blame desperate people for doing desperate things. Nobody would set my house on fire. Believe it or not, I'm a pretty nice guy, but just in case, I'm always well armed.
-- Modified on 8/10/2011 7:59:00 AM
"hey, if you want to make an omlette?" So I guess if the company wants to break the strike it's OK if it slashes the tires of workers cars? Or sends in thugs like in the bad old days to beat up picketers? There is no way to justify breaking the law. Period. Especially if it puts other people's lives in danger. I repeat, would you be OK if your phone service was cut by vandalism and a member of your family died as a result?
And do you really believe you can do much to stop a mob from burning your house simply because you're armed? Do you really think they care that you call yourself "a nice guy?" You are beyond naive. Try imaging this: the mob reaches your house. You go out, chant "power to the people" and tell them you support their efforts. They laugh and start throwing Molotov cocktails onto your roof. You have a gun. So what? You might get a few of them, but the rest will be so pissed they'll burn you up inside your own house. Be very careful what you wish for.
And what the hell do the banks that caused the economic mess have to do with Verizon?
Answer: nothing.
The company could slash the tires of their workers. Companies have done much worse things to their workers, even when they're not on strike. If Verizon didn't want their shit sabotaged, they could honor the union's contract. Plain and simple.
There's no justification in breaking the law? So when John Brown led a slave rebellion that resulting in the murder of slave owners, that was not justified? When Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to sit at the back of the bus, that was not justified? When union workers occupied GM plants in a sit-down strike that resulted in the creation of the UAW, and by extension created the modern American middle class, that was not justified?
You didn't answer my question. If the law doesn't apply to them, then why should it apply to anyone? If Verizon bribes politicians to make "standard" union practices illegal, then why is it not justified to use extra-legal methods to settle disputes?
What you're seeing in London is not a mob. It's democracy in action. Democracy is messy. It isn't always peaceful. But make no mistake: These "riots" are a REACTION. These people didn't burn down stores for the shits and giggles of it. It was a reaction. If I had had a long history of fucking people over in my neighborhood and then I blew someone's head off, and was protected by the state from facing responsibility for that crime, then I would fully expect people to throw molotov cocktails at my house. Furthermore, the "mob" throwing them would be justified.
This predates your time on this board Nicky, but I have been in more protests than I can count. I have seen up close and personal how cops will provoke a reaction, while these "mobs" will show infinite patience. I have seen people 2 feet from me getting their heads bashed in for the crime of their foot slipping off a curb. I have been teargassed, peppersprayed, and slammed against walls and buses, all while not doing a single damn thing that is illegal. And I live a rather privileged middle class existence.
And you want to judge minorities living in a ghetto who see never ending police abuse? C'mon. As the saying goes, if you don't want trouble, don't start none.
But you dig yourself in deeper every time. First you make a warped analogy between union workers legally striking but vandalizing property with John Brown trying to free the slaves? This is laughable on its face. If you fail to see that, we have nothing further to discuss on this point. And Rose Parks refusing to move is NOT the same thing as Brown's insurrection or people vandalizing property. And, of course, it also has nothing to do with the creation of the UAW when strikebreakers and thugs were used. In this case the thugs are in the union.
Now tell me about the so-called "bribes" and the "standard" union practices that are now illegal. I don't know of any significant union right that's been compromised in the Verizon case.
And let me define democracy for you: it's when every adult has the right to select representatives to his own government. Of course, you'll argue that the whole electoral process is a sham. Believe that if you'd like. I know it has serious flaws -- many of which we might agree on -- but they do not justify violence (and if you want violence, it's the right wing that is more likely to give it to you than me). The London mobs are not a legitimate part of demoncracy. They're a bunch of ignorant thugs who took advantage of a legitimate grievance to get things they didn't work for. No, they didn't burn stores for "shits and giggles," they did it for free stuff they didn't earn. And they did it to people who are not agents of big government or who are part of the problem of unemployment. They did it to lower middle class people of the same background as themselves, just ones who are willing to work. I wonder how many more people are unemployed today because their workplace is in ashes?
Then there's your twisting of my analogy of the people coming to burn your house because "you" shot one of them. Wrong. The people who are getting burned out didn't shoot anybody. They just had something these people wanted. If they came for you, it wouldn't be because of anything you did, but because of something you had. Get it?
And, BTW, you're not the only one who's been to a demonstration. It may have been a long time ago, but I know what it feels like to be tear gassed simply for exercising my right of free assembly. I know what it's like to see a cop beat an innocent bystander, feet away from me, who just happened to be walking by. So, please, don't play the martyr with me.
You need to stop hyperventilating and get a grip because your arguments are so obviously flawed you simply make yourself seem foolish.
Nicky, I didn't make an analogy between vandalizing property and what John Brown did. I was simply pointing out that when the law is not just, and when it is not equally applied, then it is not immoral to break that law.
Standard labor practices were made illegal by the Taft–Hartley Act. When Verizon refuses to sit down and negotiate with the union, they are doing so in order to create an advantage against the union. The union sabotaging Verizon's equipment was done to create an advantage against Verizon. It's as simple as that. The reality is that for the workers, lives are on the line. If Verizon didn't want their property damaged, then they wouldn't threaten the lives of their workers.
The word Democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", which means "people", and "krateo" which means "rule". What you're describing is a democratic republic. Representatives are there for convenience, but they are not the rulers.
When our representatives have ceased to be representative, then they are illegitimate. I hope I don't have to demonstrate this reality to you, as it's so self-evident that it's embarrassing.
The poor bourgeoisie shop owners are the perpetual victims, aren't they? You show me an innocent capitalist, and I'll show you a nice piece of real estate I can sell you that sits in San Francisco Bay. If they want to direct their anger at someone, they could try directing it at the state that caused this whole mess.
Back in 1999, there were some violent protests against the World Trade Organization by labor unions, and the media had a big hissy fit over a broken Starbucks window. Well, guess what? 12 years later there's still a Starbucks, but there ain't no jobs. Maybe if the protesters in Seattle had reacted the way that London is reacting right now, there still would be.
my last post isn't linking correctly. Here's my response:
Nicky, I didn't make an analogy between vandalizing property and what John Brown did. I was simply pointing out that when the law is not just, and when it is not equally applied, then it is not immoral to break that law.
Standard labor practices were made illegal by the Taft–Hartley Act. When Verizon refuses to sit down and negotiate with the union, they are doing so in order to create an advantage against the union. The union sabotaging Verizon's equipment was done to create an advantage against Verizon. It's as simple as that. The reality is that for the workers, lives are on the line. If Verizon didn't want their property damaged, then they wouldn't threaten the lives of their workers.
The word Democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", which means "people", and "krateo" which means "rule". What you're describing is a democratic republic. Representatives are there for convenience, but they are not the rulers.
When our representatives have ceased to be representative, then they are illegitimate. I hope I don't have to demonstrate this reality to you, as it's so self-evident that it's embarrassing.
The poor bourgeoisie shop owners are the perpetual victims, aren't they? You show me an innocent capitalist, and I'll show you a nice piece of real estate I can sell you that sits in San Francisco Bay. If they want to direct their anger at someone, they could try directing it at the state that caused this whole mess.
Back in 1999, there were some violent protests against the World Trade Organization by labor unions, and the media had a big hissy fit over a broken Starbucks window. Well, guess what? 12 years later there's still a Starbucks, but there ain't no jobs. Maybe if the protesters in Seattle had reacted the way that London is reacting right now, there still would be.
Well, I guess your bad analogies were just sloppy writing, huh? And please find me one more person on the planet that thinks Taft-Hartley did what you say. Union sabotage is a crime. Literally. If you want to justify it, go ahead, but you don't get to cherry pick which parts of the law you obey and which parts you don't. And Verizon is now "threatening the lives" of its workers? I know you're exaggerating but, once again your using overheated language. Speaking of language I actually do know the derivation of the word democracy, so please don't play the school marm. And talk about fracturing language, calling a shop keeper a "capitalist" is another stretch. All capitalists are guilty? Of what? Providing jobs? Paying taxes? What do you think fuels our economy? It ain't the government. It's small business. Then you say it was "the state that caused this whole mess." Huh? You just said it was the bankers and other capitalists. Please make up your mind. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth again. Oh, well, at least you're not referring to yourself as "Willy."
Is it a crime when a corporation sabotages a contract negotiation? What about when a corporation sabotages an entire community, or an entire region of the country (like the Rust Belt)? Is that sabotage a crime? Of course not.
Yes, Verizon is threatening the lives of their workers. No, I'm not exaggering. I mean it literally. See the link below.
I do try not to play the marm, but you keep opening yourself up to it, Nicky. Capitalists are guilty of many things, but it's a little late for me to list a fraction of them.
But let's try starting with this. I don't know what kind of stores these are, but let's assume that at least one of them is a retail store.
Now, did these stores produce the products they're selling? If not, then how much did it cost for them to purchase those products from the manufacturer? How much are they selling them for? Are they selling those products for more than they bought them for, less, or the same price? If they're selling those products for a higher price, then does that not mean that they're selling overvalued products? If they're selling overvalued products, then is that not stealing from the consumer?
Do these shops have any employees? What is the value of the employee's productivity? What is the value of their wage/salary? Is their wage/salary less than their productivity, of equal value to their productivity, or more than their productivity? If it is less than their productivity, then does that not mean that the employee is being robbed?
Next, if the employees of these stores are being robbed, and the customers of these stores are being robbed, then are these stores robbing taxpayers as well? Do they get subsidies from the state to exist, while the taxpayers see no profit from these businesses sales, and are in fact being robbed?
What is the ecological and environmental footprint of these stores? Do they create any pollution in the local community? Did the locals vote to allow them to pollute the local community? Who pays the health costs incurred by that pollution?
Do these stores sell nothing but sustainable products? If not, then does that not mean that what they sell is finite? Is it not theft to take finite materials from future generations, in order to make a short term profit today?
Wish for me to marm some more?
The state. Business. What's the dif? Business is a just an extention of the state. I'm not legal expert on British law, but I'd bet that these stores have limited liability production. If Phil or Mari want to correct me on this, please do, because I'm curious. If they do have limited liability, how did they get it? Did they not receive this privilege from the state? Are they not incorporated by the state? Do these "rioters" get to enjoy limited liability?
All right, willy is done for the night. 
-- Modified on 8/10/2011 7:49:40 PM
But you have cornered the market. You have completely bought into the idea that anybody, anywhere who runs a business is an exploiter. Most of the people in the world disagree with you. And was it really any better when the "workers" ran things?
Hint: This is what the workers used to say in Russia: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." This is why there are no true communist countries left, and why there never will be. You pine for a workers' utopia that can never be, and that is sad.
In fact, your version of the world is no less distorted in its way than mein's Konspiracy World or msnogood's Apocalyptic World. Just different versions of weird.
-- Modified on 8/10/2011 10:50:49 PM
Especially the organic kind I make myself.
Yes, you've finally nailed it Nicky. Anyone who runs a business is in the business of exploitation. There is no such thing as a innocent capitalist.
Most of the people in this world don't agree with the American view of capitalism. You're right. There's are no true communist countries left. Capitalism is the only thing left. And what are the fruits of capitalism? Right now there are a billion people on this planet who are straving to death.
Nicky, don't confuse me for a communist, especially a Soviet "communist". A lot of the ideas that I happen to agree with came out of the Mutualist school of thought, which the communists opposed. So much so that Marx tried to get Bakunin killed. Given the history, I see that as a bit of a slap on the face.
The only thing I pine for is an economy that is democratic. And just because that hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it's not possible.
" it's when every adult has the right to select representatives to his own government."
If that's your definition, there is not a single democracy on the planet, and there never has been.
P.S.
I didn't read most of the rest of your long post b/c it seems to be a debate with Willy which is always pointless. It appears Willy is playing with you by acting the fool again.
As for my definition, it's accurate. Note that I didn't say we had a right to select a good representative that wasn't tainted by corporate or other special interests. Just a representative.
My point to your definition is that in no country in the history of the world has it ever been true that every adult has a right to vote.
Perhaps you want to modify your definition or else resign yourself that no country as ever met your definition.
What adult in this country does not have the opportunity to vote, except for a convicted felon? The problem is half the people who do have the right to vote don't bother because they are either too lazy or don't like the choices they've been given. But that doesn't mean they don't have a right to vote. You can argue the choice for the voter is meaningless, but not that they don't have the opportunity to vote. Hell, even in the USSR adults could vote. They just had only one choice. Clearly, that's not democracy. But also clearly, that's not the case here, even though I'll concede the choices are imperfect.
But convicted felons are not the only exception. Resident aliens cannot vote in national elections. Residents of the commonwealths (Guam, PR, etc.) only get a non-voting delegate ("shadow representative) to Congress. They can vote only in the presidential primaries, but not the general election. Etc.
Voting for all adults is not absolute, nor has it ever been.
Why should a resident alien be allowed to vote? And what percentage of the electorate do Guam and PR represent? The fact remains that virtually all citizens have the right to vote. The problem is not the tiny percentage who don't; it's that a huge percentage of those who have the right don't exercise it. Are you a Talmudic scholar or something? Because this is getting silly. I was hoping your argument was that even if everyone has the "right" to vote it's meaningless if the choices are bogus. I'll agree on that one. And we're getting close.
that had nothing whatsoever to do with your definition and seem upset that I wasn't making such an irrelevant argument.
Also, congrats on changing the goalposts. I twice called you out on your 'absolute' statement and you refused to accept it was wrong. So now it doesn't matter because its 'virtually' all, which is not your original definition.
Nor does the 'huge' percentage who don't vote have anything to do with your definition either. You've been reading to many of Willy's posts because you seem to be adopting his posting style here.
I had to reward you for going off on a tangent, but if voting is a 'right' and not an obligation, then everyone is fully within their right not to vote. That's not a problem at all. No more than its a problem that an even huger percentage does not run for office despite it being their right, or not owning a gun despite it being a right (for some) or not making public speeches despite it being their right, etc. etc.
BTW, comparing me to Willy is a low blow.
-- Modified on 8/10/2011 1:13:05 PM
-- Modified on 8/10/2011 1:33:00 PM
That intro should grab some attention. Willy, in an earlier post you selected Verizon as one of your stock picks. I assume you did your due diligence, and that included a good dividend play and less volatility during market turbulence. You also picked Verizon for their market dominance and stellar management execution. Most importantly willy, you separated emotion from money. Well done.
You do know willy that this specific union is tied to Verizon's wireline business. You do know that the wireline business is contracting, and eventually will disappear. I'm not sure this union has any leverage. Nevertheless, as a shareholder willy, albeit a fake shareholder, you have put your fake money and fake trust into management.
I'm so proud of you.
-- Modified on 8/10/2011 1:11:34 PM
1,000 bravos.
well, I was just shooting in the dark on that one. But I've been looking at how volitile the market is right now, and I'm looking at the long term growth as a pretty good way to ride out this storm.
Look at the 10 year growth rates of these guys:
TJX
amazon
apple
netflix
mcdonald's
Yum brands
cisco
What do you think?
Are these the only 7 pretend investments? Cisco is a value not a growth play. Chambers the CEO needs to be fired or just leave. I understand Netflix's business model, but I'm just not buying in to it. Your others are fine, but I don't see any industrials, i.e. CAT, Cummins, or Materials, i.e. Freeport. These are China plays. TJX is a good play on the low end consumer, but I would add a high end play to play off of it, i.e. Tiffany.
I've never seen a market like this, even 1987. I thought yesterday was capitulation, obviously not. I need to see shear panic in the streets. This market is not for kids. If you are fake buying, only take a small position to start, i.e. 15%. Scale in over time.
-- Modified on 8/10/2011 2:22:59 PM
When the talking heads are asking if we've found a bottom, that's a sure sign we have not.
Marikod finally selling his BAC stock would signal a bottom. lol
This is a time for traders to get rich and investors, except for the most experienced and risk tolerant, to stay on the sidelines.
This correction is quite overdue, and I don't think it's over by a longshot. This market has been deprived of a cathartic, painful correction for way too long. This current period of volatility is a healthy thing.
One of the biggest problems is the free market is no longer free. Everyone has to factor in government interference as part of their investment strategy. No longer are weak, and badly managed companies allowed to simply fail and have their rotting corpses put on display for all to see as a warning to not repeat their mistakes, lest they join their illfated predecessors. lol
They pay substandard wages to poor people and crank out shitty food that gives the other poor people who eat it coronary disease and high blood pressure. Your kind of stock, capitalist running dog? Oh, and how much do you want to bet that Cisco, TJX and Apple have offshore manufacturing that has taken American jobs and employs poor Asians at starvation wages. Perfect!
You mother fucking cock sucking piece of shit (lol). Why did you do that? Now he is going to crawl back under his leftist rock and spew stupid shit 24 hours a day. Do you know how long it took GaG, me, even you asshole, to bring him around to at least consider investing.
Now shut your anorexic malnourished tapeworm overdosed Dick Gregory Bahamian diet drinking ass. I can't claim that one. It's from Wesley Snipes in "White Men Can't Jump", but it's good. Oh yeah, you're a white geeky chump too (lmao)
willy, don't listen to this clown. He is probably sober and hasn't had any pussy in 2 days, so he isn't thinking straight.
...your name calling is fucking hilarious. It's even funnier when it's not directed at me.
Don't worry, Nicky. I'm well aware that these companies are fucking evil to their core. It doesn't mean I can't make money off of it, even if it's just pretend money for the time being.
Knowing that you're a virtual hypocrite soothes my soul.
We live in a capitalist nation. There's not a damn thing I can do about that. I can either work my government job, be a slave to a capitalist, or I can use their Frankenstein creation to gain as much wealth as possible so I have the resources to clean up some of their messes.
I've often thought what I could do for the homeless if I had GaG's resources. Or hell, Bill Gates'. Well, I see no reason not to try. If that's hypocrisy, that's cool with me.
use the resources of a system you hate to accomplish your goals, well, then you and I have a differrent definition of the word. Bottom line, I do think you're kind of an idiot but I can't help liking your misguided and naive commitment to your strange goals. Does that make any sense? LOL!
Wrong again, you shit-eating, piss-drinking, cum-sucking, fudge-packing, panty-wearing, feces-smeared excuse for post-op tranny!
1) I am on my second double vodka.
2) I just spent a cum-soaked hour with my ATF, who sucked all the chrome off my trailer hitch.
3) tomorrow night I'm going to a M&G with the hottest gals in the Big Apple and my only problem is, which sex machine am I gonna go home with?
Put that in your capitalist-running-dog, worker-exploiting, baby-raping pie-hole and blow it out your hemmerhoid-pocked, stretched-out, gaping ass!
LMFAO!
PS: I love you, man!
why did you have your ATF suck the chrome off your trailer hitch? I would have just had her suck my cock. 
He should have said, "my ATF can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch". Very similar to "she can suck a baseball through a garden hose". What Inicky didn't say is that his ATF is an actual person from Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. Still a female, but probably packing a little bit more than just a firearm. No doubt he plays the submissive role in his encounters. (lmao)
The question is his cadence. How you say is just as important as what you say. So he needs to go to some of the Harlem basketball courts and practice with some of the brothers on the courts. Get away with there, and you get get away with it anywhere. Of course, looking like an NFL linebacker helps.
-- Modified on 8/10/2011 9:23:46 PM
And, yes, she was packing....a vibrating egg, a glass dildo she asked me to use on her (which made her squirt right in my face), some pretty good porn and her "slutty stewardess" outfit. She also asked me to slap her tits...hard. No gun needed.
As for Harlem basketball courts, you're welcome to them. LOL!
my "trailer hitch." How's that, you dick-smoking, commie-fucking faggot?
I need to get my ATF to remove her back teeth. As for the length, I was talking about a Class III hitch. Ever seen one, big guy? There's about 8 inches that slide into the "receiver." I guess you don't "tow" much. LOL!
Care to share with class the tongue weight rating? LMAO
Other than a 6 ton dumptrailer I don't do much towing. And i sure dont think of your cock when i'm doing it!!!
And I'm too lazy to go outside and look. But it's an old '99 Dodge Ram (no pun intended) 2500 with an 8-liter V10. I tow a 24-foot box trailer, total loaded weight about 7,000 lbs.
I am relieved to know you don't think of my cock while doing it. Which begs the question, exactly when DO you think about my cock? LOL!
Trust me I know. Your idea of roughing it is no room service at the Four Seasons. I once tried to have my wife back up a small trailer with 2 jet skis at a lake. That and 3 days of camping was pure hell. Sorry, it ain't in your guys DNA.
Though I'm impressed my your trash talking. I might have to use crib notes for awhile until I can remember it by heart.
-- Modified on 8/11/2011 9:12:24 AM
Never practiced, never even bar mitzvahed. Grew up camping, sailing, racing cars, fucking off, doing drugs, etc. My wife calls me and my family a bunch of WASPs. I can back up a 24' trailer reasonably well. I would never own a Mercedes. I hate gefilte fish. Get the picture? As for trash talking, you ain't seen nuthin'. LOL!