Thread to honor the labor movement

[Woodruff]

If someone tells me they prefer Romney (or Obama), that's fine as long as they're not simultaneously trying to tell me that they're a libertarian.

If someone tells me they prefer Obama,that's fine as long as they're not simultaneously trying to tell me they support workers rights or economic equality.

I hope you're not looking for an argument from me. I'm no fan of Obama's.

[saxitoxin]

If someone tells me they prefer Romney (or Obama), that's fine as long as they're not simultaneously trying to tell me that they're a libertarian.

If someone tells me they prefer Obama,that's fine as long as they're not simultaneously trying to tell me they support workers rights or economic equality.

I hope you're not looking for an argument from me. I'm no fan of Obama's.

oh Woodruff

I'm sorry I just don't have time to explain this conversation to you right now.

[Woodruff]

If someone tells me they prefer Romney (or Obama), that's fine as long as they're not simultaneously trying to tell me that they're a libertarian.

If someone tells me they prefer Obama,that's fine as long as they're not simultaneously trying to tell me they support workers rights or economic equality.

I hope you're not looking for an argument from me. I'm no fan of Obama's.

oh Woodruff

I'm sorry I just don't have time to explain this conversation to you right now.

I just wish you didn't have time to troll all the time. It would be a pleasant change.

[saxitoxin]

OK, Juan. Little pleasures like pasting and clicking are all that's been left to the proletariat so I'll let you regale in them. It seems like you're enjoying yourself. Have fun in the time that's left.

[Juan_Bottom]

I post songs too though.

[saxitoxin]

I post songs too though.

It's hilarious when Democrats expropriate radicals like Utah Phillips, people who probably never voted Democrat in their life. IIRC Philips even ran against a Democrat in the '60s on the P&F ticket and was denounced and vilified by every level of the Democrat Party for the next 20 years.

Utah Phillips isn't yours and if he was alive he would want nothing to do with your bought loyalty to the Great Machine.

(I'm sure Democrats are eagerly waiting for Ralph Nader to die so they can posthumously rehabilitate him after a few years and then start sigging his quotes and mantling him as one of their heroes.)

[Juan_Bottom]

The Haymarket affair (also known as the Haymarket massacre or Haymarket riot) refers to the aftermath of a bombing that took place at a labor demonstration on Tuesday May 4, 1886, at Haymarket Square[3] in Chicago. It began as a peaceful rally in support of workers striking for an eight-hour day. An unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at police as they acted to disperse the public meeting. The bomb blast and ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of seven police officers and at least four civilians, and the wounding of scores of others.

In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy. The evidence was that none of defendants on trial had thrown the bomb.[4][5][6] Seven were sentenced to death and one to a term of 15 years in prison. The death sentences of two of the defendants were commuted by Illinois governor Richard J. Oglesby to terms of life in prison, and another committed suicide in jail rather than face the gallows. The other four were hanged on November 11, 1887. In 1893, Illinois' new governor John Peter Altgeld pardoned the remaining defendants and criticized the trial.

The Haymarket affair is generally considered significant as the origin of international May Day observances for workers.[7][8] The site of the incident was designated a Chicago Landmark on March 25, 1992,[9] and a public sculpture was dedicated at the site in 2004. The Haymarket Martyrs' Monument in nearby Forest Park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated a National Historic Landmark on February 18, 1997.[2]

[Juan_Bottom]

This isn't a politics thread Saxi.

[saxitoxin]

The Haymarket affair (also known as the Haymarket massacre or Haymarket riot) refers to the aftermath of a bombing that took place at a labor demonstration on Tuesday May 4, 1886, at Haymarket Square[3] in Chicago. It began as a peaceful rally in support of workers striking for an eight-hour day. An unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at police as they acted to disperse the public meeting. The bomb blast and ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of seven police officers and at least four civilians, and the wounding of scores of others.

In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy. The evidence was that none of defendants on trial had thrown the bomb.[4][5][6] Seven were sentenced to death and one to a term of 15 years in prison. The death sentences of two of the defendants were commuted by Illinois governor Richard J. Oglesby to terms of life in prison, and another committed suicide in jail rather than face the gallows. The other four were hanged on November 11, 1887. In 1893, Illinois' new governor John Peter Altgeld pardoned the remaining defendants and criticized the trial.

The Haymarket affair is generally considered significant as the origin of international May Day observances for workers.[7][8] The site of the incident was designated a Chicago Landmark on March 25, 1992,[9] and a public sculpture was dedicated at the site in 2004. The Haymarket Martyrs' Monument in nearby Forest Park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated a National Historic Landmark on February 18, 1997.[2]

Just two pages in and you're already contradicting yourself?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177627&start=0#p3878816

[Juan_Bottom]

This isn't a thread to honor Labor Day, it's a thread to honor the Labor Movement. Some of the stuff that I've posted only indirectly effected the labor movement as a consequence.

[saxitoxin]

This isn't a thread to honor Labor Day, it's a thread to honor the Labor Movement. Some of the stuff that I've posted only indirectly effected the labor movement as a consiquence.

If you want to honor the Labor Movement you'll delete Labor Day from the title of your thread. I explained this on page one but I guess you were too busy hitting copy/paste with your pretty pictures that have you so bedazzled in a hypnotic, blank-eyed stare of awe at the illusion fronted by The Great Machine to which you've sold your obedience.

Sacco and Vanzetti - anarchist activists executed by an anti-Labor Democrat-run Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1927

"Here's to You" by Ennio Morricone

[saxitoxin]

In honor of Labor, it's time to enact the EEB (Juan, as a supporter of Obama, opposes Labor and the EEB. Juan, why do you back the opponents of organized Labor?):

The AFL-CIO leadership is demanding that the two corporate-financed parties, the Democrats and Republicans, adopt the Economic Bill of Rights in their platforms at their conventions this year. They must know this a lost cause with the openly anti-union Republicans. They should know that a real commitment to an Economic Bill of Rights is as much a lost cause with the Democrats, who have taken labor’s political support for granted for many decades with no significant pro-labor reforms to show for it.

If they didn’t know that, it should have been clear on August 11 when a 40,000-strong AFL-CIO sponsored rally in Philadelphia called for the Economic Bill of Rights. The rally heard by video from President Obama, who made no mention of the Economic Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, in Detroit, the platform committee of the Democratic National Convention put the final touches on the platform to be adopted over Labor Day week that has no planks to secure any of these economic rights.

The great victories of labor have always been won by independent actions that pressured the political establishment to make concessions. The landmark National Labor Relations Act, which finally established workers’ right to collectively bargain, was adopted in 1935 under the pressure of independent labor political action in the factories, shops, and streets by the ascendant union movement and in the electoral arena in the form of many union resolutions calling for a labor party. The labor party resolutions had credibility because the labor-backed Farmer-Labor and Progressive parties in the Upper Midwest already had two governors, three Senators, and 12 Representatives in their camp in 1935 and they were considering an independent presidential campaign in 1936.

But after the AFL rejected the labor party and went into the Democratic Party in 1936, labor lost its independent vision and its leverage in the political system. It was now part of a coalition dominated by big business. Today, the AFL-CIO leadership has taken a small step toward independence by saying they will not give money directly to Democratic committees and candidates.

http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2012/09/ ... -politics/

[rdsrds2120]

saxitoxin, you're hitting pretty hard on Juan here. Ease up, man.

-rd

[Juan_Bottom]

If you want to honor the Labor Movement you'll delete Labor Day from the title of your thread. I explained this on page one but I guess you were too busy hitting copy/paste with your pretty pictures that have you so bedazzled in a hypnotic, blank-eyed stare of awe at the illusion fronted by The Great Machine to which you've sold your obedience.

I'm not sure that you're wrong, but I'm not sure that you're right. To almost everyone, Labor Day is the day that they associate with honoring Labor. I mean, I understand the historic significance of what you say, but it's like Celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25. Sure it was someone else's birthday first, and there's no evidence that it's actually the day Jesus was born, but we can't just pretend like it has nothing to do with Jesus now. Or that it isn't Jesus' birthday now.

I'm not sure if I'm right on this. So I'd like to hear some more opinions.

Juan, as a supporter of Obama, opposes Labor and the EEB. Juan, why do you back the opponents of organized Labor?

I don't but I'm not sure that I do.
I have to think on this some more. I do believe that we can't have political labor organizations with more power than our fricking government, unless they are our fricking government. But I'm also not sure that anyone has the right to restrict their power. What have they got now, like 9 million members? And how many more could they get?

Anyone have a thought here?

saxitoxin, you're hitting pretty hard on Juan here. Ease up, man.

I'm good RD.

[Woodruff]

I have to think on this some more. I do believe that we can't have political labor organizations with more power than our fricking government, unless they are our fricking government. But I'm also not sure that anyone has the right to restrict their power. What have they got now, like 9 million members? And how many more could they get?

Anyone have a thought here?

I have as much of a problem with unions being politically active with money as I do corporations being politically active with money. That's not what unions are for.

[Symmetry]

I have to think on this some more. I do believe that we can't have political labor organizations with more power than our fricking government, unless they are our fricking government. But I'm also not sure that anyone has the right to restrict their power. What have they got now, like 9 million members? And how many more could they get?

Anyone have a thought here?

I have as much of a problem with unions being politically active with money as I do corporations being politically active with money. That's not what unions are for.

It's part of what unions are for, maybe even key to the idea- getting a bunch of people together to represent a shared interest is kind of what politics is about, after all.

[saxitoxin]

Juan, as a supporter of Obama, opposes Labor and the EEB. Juan, why do you back the opponents of organized Labor?

I don't but I'm not sure that I do.
I have to think on this some more. I do believe that we can't have political labor organizations with more power than our fricking government, unless they are our fricking government.

"Whoa whoa whoa - hold up ... when I said I support organized labor, I mean, like if they're subtle about it and limit it to some folks songs and signs. I didn't know this was, like, a serious thing."

[Woodruff]

I have to think on this some more. I do believe that we can't have political labor organizations with more power than our fricking government, unless they are our fricking government. But I'm also not sure that anyone has the right to restrict their power. What have they got now, like 9 million members? And how many more could they get?

Anyone have a thought here?

I have as much of a problem with unions being politically active with money as I do corporations being politically active with money. That's not what unions are for.

It's part of what unions are for, maybe even key to the idea- getting a bunch of people together to represent a shared interest is kind of what politics is about, after all.

Unions are for allowing a bunch of people to get together to make sure they are treated fairly and safely in the workplace. Unions are not for allowing a bunch of people to get together to buy politicians.

[Symmetry]

I have to think on this some more. I do believe that we can't have political labor organizations with more power than our fricking government, unless they are our fricking government. But I'm also not sure that anyone has the right to restrict their power. What have they got now, like 9 million members? And how many more could they get?

Anyone have a thought here?

I have as much of a problem with unions being politically active with money as I do corporations being politically active with money. That's not what unions are for.

It's part of what unions are for, maybe even key to the idea- getting a bunch of people together to represent a shared interest is kind of what politics is about, after all.

Unions are for allowing a bunch of people to get together to make sure they are treated fairly and safely in the workplace. Unions are not for allowing a bunch of people to get together to buy politicians.

Why shouldn't union members also be politicians? The distinction you make seems artificial.

[rdsrds2120]

I have to think on this some more. I do believe that we can't have political labor organizations with more power than our fricking government, unless they are our fricking government. But I'm also not sure that anyone has the right to restrict their power. What have they got now, like 9 million members? And how many more could they get?

Anyone have a thought here?

I have as much of a problem with unions being politically active with money as I do corporations being politically active with money. That's not what unions are for.

It's part of what unions are for, maybe even key to the idea- getting a bunch of people together to represent a shared interest is kind of what politics is about, after all.

Unions are for allowing a bunch of people to get together to make sure they are treated fairly and safely in the workplace. Unions are not for allowing a bunch of people to get together to buy politicians.

Why shouldn't union members also be politicians? The distinction you make seems artificial.

I see what Woodruff's saying. There shouldn't be any large group of one people with a common interest swaying the decision of one person, as that is unfair.

However, I don't think he's opposed if someone is a politician (who is also part of a union) gets elected in a fair way as long as special interest groups didn't have anything to do with it, particularly.

-rd

[Woodruff]

I have to think on this some more. I do believe that we can't have political labor organizations with more power than our fricking government, unless they are our fricking government. But I'm also not sure that anyone has the right to restrict their power. What have they got now, like 9 million members? And how many more could they get?

Anyone have a thought here?

I have as much of a problem with unions being politically active with money as I do corporations being politically active with money. That's not what unions are for.

It's part of what unions are for, maybe even key to the idea- getting a bunch of people together to represent a shared interest is kind of what politics is about, after all.

Unions are for allowing a bunch of people to get together to make sure they are treated fairly and safely in the workplace. Unions are not for allowing a bunch of people to get together to buy politicians.

Why shouldn't union members also be politicians? The distinction you make seems artificial.

I don't believe I made that distinction at all. I'm not sure how you made the leap from "unions should not be politically active with money or be buying politicians" to "union members shouldn't be politicians". How DID you make that leap?

[Symmetry]

I don''t think it's a leap- being politically active is essentially the same as being a politician.

[saxitoxin]

I agree with everything Symmetry has said in this thread so I'm passing it off to him as I can't spend time on it anymore.

[Woodruff]

I don''t think it's a leap- being politically active is essentially the same as being a politician.

It's a tremendous leap to go from a statement regarding an organization itself to a statement regarding a member of an organization.

I would also strongly disagree that being politically active is essentially the same as being a politician.

[PLAYER57832]

I have to think on this some more. I do believe that we can't have political labor organizations with more power than our fricking government, unless they are our fricking government. But I'm also not sure that anyone has the right to restrict their power. What have they got now, like 9 million members? And how many more could they get?

Anyone have a thought here?

I have as much of a problem with unions being politically active with money as I do corporations being politically active with money. That's not what unions are for.

The problem is not unions, or even corporations per se. The problem is that when a few people get to make decisions, they tend to make them to benefit themselves... and make excuses for why they cannot do more for others. Not always true, but generally.

That's why Presidents are supposed to be re-elected every 4 years, Senators every 6... etc. Unfortunately, so much money is now vested in just communicating new "facts", we never see a real turnover.