What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
134 Comments
- kencyber, on 10/12/2007, -10/+80Isn't it funny how G.W. Bush proclaims to be spreading freedom and democracy around the world while suppressing our freedoms here at home. Just look at the NSA wiretapping fiasco and the human rights abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Gharaib.
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40I'll let Alexander Fraser Tytler tell you why,
" From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage. "
Guess where on the list your country is at - orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Is this really any surprise? This is coming from one of the most hostile administrations towards the common people in generations. Anyone who actually thinks Bush is on our side is either: a.) rich, or b.) a tool.
(I'm gonna guess that roughly 90% of Bush supporters fall into the "b" category) - SeppukuBLUE, on 10/12/2007, -8/+372009, rather. :(
- shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -22/+50Conservatives are cowards. They are afraid of science, serving in the military, facts, diplomacy...and now it turns they are afraid of unions.
- SeppukuBLUE, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30@ MacTard
Well, I made a mistake, at least I fixed it. And only five minutes. I can't say the same for good ol' Bush. Who knows how long it will take to mend the ***** he's caused?
And, yes, I am a registered voter. - DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28Umm.. I don't get it. Workers are citizens of a nation, and citizens should have rights within that nation. Businesses are tools of the citizens of a nation to get stuff done and make life easier. Corporations do not exist in nature, are creations of the states, and should fall under the jurisdiction of those states if not the federal government as well-- we should be able to impose anything we want on them if we think its what's best for our country. This kind of stuff is common sense until right wingers start making ***** up about corporate rights.
I don't get the movement in this country that thinks corporations for some reason have RIGHTS like human beings do. They have PRIVILEGES from the American people, including the people that they employ. Like the privilege of limited liability, which encourages investments because the risks of losing all your property or being named in a lawsuit are stripped out, making it so that only your initial investments are lost. Ever notice that these "free market" losers never seem to charp in at how UNNATURAL thos privileges? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I don't know if you've seen the documentary "The Corporation," the whole thing is up on google video, but the supreme court gave corporations the rights of a person by legally defining them as such. I think a big part of the problem in this country is corporate dominance and power, they own all the media and all the politicians, and the general population is now referred to as consumers rather than citizens.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21kencyber,
It doesn't matter what you say or feel about Bush, the actual matter at hand is what this law would do... strip the basic and vita protection of the secret ballot from the workers. This law invites thuggery and intimidation. The reason for requiring a secret ballot is to ensure that employees can vote their preference without fear of reprisal.
The "Employee Free Choice Act" should be vetoed. Or better yet, not passed in the first place. What it does is allow the use of intimidation and threats to influence the workforce. That is why the requirement of the secret ballot was instituted in the first place.
Step back from your bias for a moment and evaluate this law on it's merits. Ask what it accomplishes. Ask yourself why we use secret ballots for most things and what is the point of abandoning them in this case? - SeppukuBLUE, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25January 20th, 2008 = greatest day ever.
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15[comment abuse]
Here's the legislation, it's short but you still need 20 years of law to understand it
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.800: - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13last line, between the . and the "
- MrDiggle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21The EFCA has nothing to do with worker's rights and everything to do with strengthening corrupt unions who really don't support worker's rights either.
- Charlesbian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Unless someone dumbs this down and tells me exactly what the content of the bill is, I am not gonna pass judgment on Bush's decision to veto it. It is not uncommon for bills to get voted down because either they are poorly written or because they are just fluff and publicity stunt bills. Think about this the next time it comes on the news that "OMFG OBAMA VOTED AGAINST ANTI-RAPE LAWS", it could have been that the bills either did nothing, or hurt existing rational policies. Passing judgment without knowing all the facts is just partisanship and sensationalism.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Do you people even understand what the bill does? It takes away the requirement that the workforce hold a secret ballot election in order to form a union. This law is *horrible* and needs to be vetoed. It invites the tactics of thuggish intimidation the "labor movement" was once so well known for. Those protections exist for a very important reason and this law the Democrats are pursuing will strip away vital protection.
You want to talk about worker rights? How about the right to vote your preference without fear of reprisal? LEARN ABOUT THE LAW YOU ARE DEFENDING!!!! It is a despicable sell-out that will actually result in some workers fearing for their safety.
Secret ballots are important because you can't threaten someone when you don't know how they voted. Please don't surrender this vital protection. Understand what the law does and think about it's ramifications. - rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"The fact is that 46 percent of the military identify themselves as republican while only 16 percent of the military identify themselves as democrats"
What was that controversial statement about the average education level of military members again? Yeah digg me down, but you know its true. - Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13 Is anyone surprised? Anyone? Anyone at all?
Not that this one issue alone is a huge gaff(business will try to do it to the workers, as the workers will try to do it to the business) but when looked at in conjunction with everything else these ass hats do, and it doesn't look very good for the average person in America...
But then again... does the average American even care?
It was once said - You will not lose your freedom from some invading army marching over the hills. You will lose it one small step at a time to your own Government. The cost of freedom is blood, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
America lost its' sight, and is dangerously close to losing whatever is left of it's freedoms. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The reason the workers of a union should be required to hold a secret ballot vote in order to form a union is to prevent coercion. This is basic common sense. The article says “even when a majority of workers ask for union representation, their employers can force them to undergo an election process”. I have a question... how do you know a majority of workers want a union? Water cooler talk? A lack of vocal objections to the idea?
Often, people feel threatened and uncomfortable when asked questions such as "are you with us?". The purpose of a secret ballot and an actual vote is to allow all the employers to vote their conscience rather than being pressured into agreeing with aggressive organizers.
The article describes the National Labor Relations board as "anti-worker". Why doesn't it take the time to recognize the intimidation and coercion often used by those seeking to form a union? No matter how "anti-labor" the board may be, it has no power to alter the will of the workers who vote. So, LET THE WORKERS VOTE.
Secret ballots are a centuries-old weapon against corruption and intimidation. Why does the so-called labor movement object to them? That is what this law is really about... do you allow the workers to vote their personal preference without fear of reprisal or do you allow the bullies of the world to control the labor force?
The act's name is a LIE. Obviously, the existing laws that require secret ballot voting offer the real free choice. Stripping workers of this protection is despicable. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@DavidYeah,
Do you understand what the issue is about this law? It strips away a vital protection that workers now have. By requiring that the workforce employ a secret ballot when voting to unionize, we ensure that those seeking to organize a union (or for that matter, those seeking to prevent it) can not intimidate or threaten the workers into voting "the right way"
The secret ballot is a basic, logical protection that we normally take for granted. Threats and intimidation do little good when you have no way of knowing how an individual voted. You can vocally support or reject unionization to those who would seek to intimidate you and then quietly vote your conscience in secret. I beg you to ask yourself why this bill seeks strip the workers of that protection.
The labor movement has largely divested itself of it's thuggish past... why invite a return to those tactics? - bishop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It is important to think of the effects of unions on workers as a WHOLE.
Unions benefit SOME workers not ALL workers.
Look at GM and Ford. They have strong unions and some people have benefited from them; however, many people have lost their jobs because these companies had to downside to meet the econical demands placed by the unions. Many never had the chance to even start working at these companies because of unions.
Toyota which is not unionized has better pay and better healthcare than either GM and Ford.
I think both Democrats and Republicans want to help people.
There is, however, a large disagreement as to what the best way to do so is...
Having a union at GM may be good for the GM worker; however, this very same union has a negative effect on the economy as a whole. The GM worker benefit but the rest of society pays for those benefits... A free market would lead to a greater benefit to society as a whole.
Wanting to help big business is not an evil thing. Society benefits from big business prospering.
- Power2thaPeople, on 02/21/2008, -5/+10Unions raise wages for all workers. If there weren't unions, organized business (Chamber of Commerce, etc.) would ratchet wages down even more than they already have since the 1950's, when many more workers were unionized. Back then, only one person in a family had to work to support a family. Workers should not have to ask the government for permission to form a union. They should get government protection when businesses illegally harass them. The EFCA would strengthen worker protections. Write or call your congressperson and tell them to support the EFCA.
- teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Unions raise wages for all workers."
Which by presence of inflation means that there is no actual raise whatsoever.
"If there weren't unions, organized business (Chamber of Commerce, etc.) would ratchet wages down even more than they already have since the 1950's, when many more workers were unionized."
Strange how the most paid professions tend to not have strong unions or any at all. Wages only decrease if people are willing to work for those wages. Perhaps we need a lot less labor than in 1950s, thus making labor cheaper? Or could it be the competition from foreign nations causing less demand for labor here. In either case unions are not going to solve the problem.
"Workers should not have to ask the government for permission to form a union."
Agree.
"They should get government protection when businesses illegally harass them."
What exactly is illegal harassment. In my understanding firing all workers who strike should be legal. Firing workers just because they are in a union should not.
"The EFCA would strengthen worker protections."
I am not familiar with this legislation. Article was of no use. Please explain what protections it would strengthen, and why you think that these protections would help. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Most importantly, what it does is expose workers to threats and intimidation because they will no longer have the protection that a secret ballot provides. This bill is essentially a license to employ strongarm tactics against workers who may not desire to be in a union.
- Mizman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8actualy, a corporation is regarded as an individual in the eyes of the law.
- TheRealM3D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Whoever dugg you down is a moron. You are absolutely right that we should understand what is actually in a bill before we react to a veto. Slapping a fancy, nice-sounding name on a bill and then stuffing it full of fluff and pet-spending happens all the time. Apparently it isn't in style to have a rational thought and actually examine the facts before condemning an action from the Bush administration.
- TheRealM3D, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6While I agree that workers should be be given the right to form unions, I think unions have FAR too much power to strongarm businesses.
I have done events in New York City, where I can't move a chair from one desk to another to eat my lunch with a friend if a union guy didn't come over and move it for me. Or move a box of tapes from the box on the floor, next to me at a video workstation... literally from the ground to the table, unless a union guy came and did it for me. If I was caught doing something as little as these actions without a union labor guy present to do it for me, they got to charge all sorts of ridiculous fees and penalties against our company for failing to uphold the rights of the unionized labor.
Want to know why it costs triple the money to run events in union controlled cities? It's because we pay lardasses $25 an hour to sit around and wait for a chair to move. Unions artificially raise the cost of labor to such heights that it becomes prohibitively expensive to do events in certain cities. For moving tables, setting up chairs and carrying boxes, we should abso-freakin-lutely be allowed to pay some teenagers minimum wage to do it. It is mindless, skillless labor. So I agree that for the sake of health care, unfair hiring and firing practices, etc, that unions can do some good... but giving them the kind of power we do to set wages and restrict unskilled workforces only hurts the economy and keeps lazy idiots living fat. Workers should be allowed to unionize, but they shouldn't be allowed to twist my arm to pay ridiculous costs for unskilled labor. - N0CTURN3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of struggle .... If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
--Frederick Douglass - DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually, thinkprogress is totally nonpartisan. They'll support members of any party that are in favor of things they are in favor of. There's a difference between ideological bias and partisan preference.
- JettaMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@DavidYeah - Have you heard of private property rights? If I own something, such as a business, then it is mine. I created it, I worked hard to make it, I invested my wealth in it, I risked to make it, so it's mine. Not yours, not "the people"'s, not the states. It is mine.This isn't the USSR you know.
- JettaMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Here's how these union votes go down when you aren't allowed a secret ballot: Everyone enters the room. A few union thugs pretend to talk to each other, but loudly say, "I wonder if any idiot will vote against this."I'm gonna be pissed at anyone voting against this!" They have an open-mike and the thugs make their pre-planned speeches about how it's good and anyone who votes against it will piss them off. The atmosphere of intimidation is firmly in place and those weak willed individuals end up going along with what appears to be the majority opinion. They vote, if it doesn't happen they improve their tactics until the vote goes through. Unions worked so well in the USSR, why not bring them here! Tuba, Teddy and WhiteRaven are the only people who said anything that makes sense in this thread.
- thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@David
Businesses are NOT "tools of the citizens." Businesses are CREATED by citizens, they are not "a creation of the state." Like it or not, if I start up a business I don't automatically owe you something, just because I'm a business owner. My business is not a tool to be used as you please. If I feel that we can both benefit from an interaction, then we do business together. But I don't exist just to take care of you and to answer to you every time you start whining.
"we should be able to impose anything we want on them if we think its what's best for our country."
Are you ***** kidding me? So if I start my own company, and I succeed and my business grows, YOU should just be able to "impose anything [you] want" on MY business? What the *****? Companies are not given "PRIVILEGES" from the citizens of whichever country they operate under. They operate under a standard set of rules and laws, but no company OWES you anything unless you've agreed to enter into a business contract with them.
It sounds like your describing a purely communist market. The government mandates everything that the businesses do, the government controls everything and will "impose anything we want on them." Communism works in two places: in heaven - where they don't need it - and in hell - where they've already got it. The fact that you got dugg up is just a testament to how out of touch you and those who dugg you are with how the real world works. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Question, shawnfassett. Do you understand why secret ballots are important and superior to open votes? I'm just wondering whether you've bothered to actually give this issue any thought... or even understand what the issue is.
- Palmetto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Government should get out of the business of telling people and businesses what to do.
If people want to unionize, fine. If companies want to forbid unions, that is their right. Let the two sort
it out. Employee/Employer relationships are a two way street. If each gets what it wants, everyone is happy.
If not each can search elsewhere for what it wants. - vonskippy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Union's in America are a HUGE scam. A free market economy is the best indicator of what your skills or services are worth, not what some Union boss figures he can milk out of a business. Unions are the main reason that the American auto industry is a fading dinosaur, soon to be pushed out (or bought out) by the foreign auto makers which produce a better product at a better price (and make more profit doing so). Artificially inflating a workers wage via Unions is like Affirmative Action - and we all saw how well that worked out.
- 3tcp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This bill does more to reinstate the union's right to intimidate and bully it's own members and non-union members in a mostly union workplace than anything else. Unions these days are devoted to intimidating and bullying anyone who tries to take a job in an industry market or firm that isn't a member and lobbying efforts to sanction their monopoly on labor and industry by government. They've been obsolete for 10 or 15 years as far as I'm concerned.
- EelfinnTy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I would consider my self a "conservative," and I love science, in particular quantum physics, and nanotechnology. I know many conservatives who are serving in the military. Facts... i don't have a problem with them. Wait what are we doing in N. Korea? I would probably call that diplomacy. I know the basics of what a union is supposed to do, and it seems like a good idea.
- ChrisWebPub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Unions exist not to serve workers, but to serve unions. Sometimes those two things coincide, other times they do not. Union leadership's only goal is to perpetuate their own bureaucracy and their own employment as union officials.
My father-in-law is an autoworker at a non-union plant and he has voted against unionizing multiple times. He realizes the truth of the situation and how with a union you'll just end up paying $20 a month in dues for $.05 more per hour.
Of course the labor lobby has done a good job with PR and has donated millions and millions to political campaigns to make sure the public thinks they are benign. You think corporations are the only ones who lobby and donate to politicians? Obviously workers should be treated fairly, but unions more often than not put the union ahead of the workers. Look at the UAW, they're a billion dollar bureaucracy.
So the labor lobby has greased the palms of Dem congressmen to pass a law making it easier for unions to form and to intimidate workers who vote against the unions. You realize many unions are just 1 step removed (sometimes not even 1 step, see Hoffa) from organized crime? If a worker votes against unionizing do you know what kind of hazing, threats, and violence they can go through? If you're okay with that, by all means, support this bill. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4tea:
>I thought it was created by the demand for skilled labor, and mass produced goods in general.
Then you would think wrong. In fact, in the 19th century mass produced goods created a demand for less skilled labor and lowered working conditions horribly. Thus the formation of many unions which advocated for things like the five day work week and the eight hour working day -- things that this generation is more than willing to let go of. - blqysmg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Democratic leadership is behind this bill for one reason, and one reason only. Unions give huge amounts of money to the Democratic Party. If this becomes law, thugs will be able to push the timid into voting for more Unions. Thus, if this bill passes, more money is coming to the Democratic Party. Very, very simple.
There is NO advantage for the average worker from this bill. If the worker wants to unionize, he proposes the union, then casts his vote in a secret ballot. If enough of his co-workers joins him in this belief, the Union gets formed. Otherwise, it fails. If we remove the secret nature of the vote, the only thing that changes is peer pressure (or fear of getting the crap beaten out of the voter) will be imposed on the voter, forcing a vote for the Union in some people who would normally vote against it. - blqysmg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@Shawnfassett and other liberals who think "Conservatives are cowards"
There has been an odd split in this country, where each side seems to point to the other and say something really dumb. Categorizing all conservatives as cowards or stupid is generalization so over the top that it truly defeats the purpose. It is true that there is a lunatic fringe on the far right that are ignorant of many scientific findings, and of the process of science itself. It is true that there are bigots within the Republican party.
It is also true that there is a tendency of intellectual snobbery going on by the left, where members of the Democratic party tend to think they are smarter just because they are the party most aligned with Universities. Just because those who decide on a teaching career are more prone to be more liberal, does not mean that all "smart" people are Democratic. As the old saying goes, "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"
Many of the old, rich families who have had big money for generations are solidly Democratic. There is a large amount of evidence that the later generations of these families have their fair share of idiots in them, just like all other families. Being born wealthy and sent to the best schools does not necessarily make one wise. It would be a mistake to assume intelligence based on political affiliation or societal standing.
The biggest difference between the parties is not how smart the members are, or how brave or patriotic. It is the question of rugged individualism versus socialism. Should the government allow people to succeed or fail on their own merits, or should it encourage over-achievers to back off, while providing a "safety net" for those who can't seem to pull it together on their own. Is it allowable to have "winners and losers" in the game of life, or should everyone be forced to "share and share alike."
Unions were created because there was a time when the owners of the means of industry used their wealth and power to provide horrible working conditions to those who felt they had no other choice. This was before Unemployment Insurance, Wage and Hour laws, OSHA, or any of the other workplace laws we have now that protects the American workers from abuse. Now, workers have a choice. They can safely leave abusive employers and go to another job, or start their own competing business.
Democrats like the idea of Unions, though. They are the "little guy" sticking it to "the man." The problem is that most big corporations these days are not owned by one tyranical robber-barron, but are publicly held, with most stocks being owned by investment funds and retirement funds. I guess it's a great victory for the Union to stick it to those horrible retired workers.
The best path is probably somewhere in between. Where are the moderates? Why is everyone so far left or far right these days? - DerProfi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11"Unions raise wages for all workers."
Don't know about "all workers", but it's clear that the union bosses sure do get paid! - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"alright I'll let you work for me, but I won't pay you......PERIOD!"
Are you serious? Is that your argument? No one is going to work for you if you don't offer competitive wages.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4teadrinker:
>But mass produced goods allowed for so many things to be accessible for the general public, even the ones that are poor. It increased the standard of living for everyone.
After a generation, yes. In the meantime the quality of living decreased massively as workers were forced to work longer and longer hours or have the freedom to be replaced by child labor. During the debate about getting rid of child labor, businesses complained that they would have to shut down because this would remove their competitive advantage. Few or none actually did. During the debate about the introduction of the minimum wage businesses stated that they would have to shut down. Few if any actually did, since workers having more money gave more money as consumers as well. Sound familiar? - teamgreen02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You guys gotta remember, this isn't the 1920's anymore. In early and mid 20th century we needed unions because the workers were getting screwed, bad working conditions, long hours, low wages. Now some unions are driving the very company their members work for right into the ground. I haven't read enough of this bill to determine if I agree with the veto or not, but unions are not always for the better.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ISIfunded911
Do some research beyond this biased article. The primary feature of the "Employee Free Choice Act" is indeed to make it "easier" to unionize. This is done by removing several steps, the most important of which is a monitored, secret ballot vote.
This law allows would-be unions to skip that step. That is not acceptable. Look past the hype and propaganda and take the time to understand the facts.
ISIfunded911, just do this for me... *if* you take the time to investigate the nature of this bill and find that I am right about it's removal of the requirement for secret ballot, will you acknowledge that this is a bad thing? - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The big unions want this bill because it will allow them to use tactics they historically have used in the past. Of course, the current law was amended so that this intimidation would go away, but the unions want this power back.
Their membership has dwindled for what they think are laws written for businesses and not for workers, but their real problem is that they're behind the curve on economic progress. There is little to stop unions from doing the legwork necessary to attempt to unionize workers. This bill would just allow them to unionize more workers, in less time, with less oversight, and more intimidating tactics. - mikelostcause, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'd be afraid of unions too. Disallowing me the right to get rid of lazy incompetence that can squeak by meeting their outdated union set quotas forcing me to close shop and move my establishment to Mexico or some other country were laziness is not held upon a platform.
I've known GM workers who work hard for 2-3 days, hit their quota, then play cards for the rest of their work week.
Unions fulfilled an important roll to the American work force, now they mainly help to destroy companies abilities to operate in the US. - picto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Someone please remind why this is such a travesty? So workers that want to unionize might be subject to a popular election of the companies employees? BFD...does this country suddenly have a problem with the democratic process? When I was a kid, the machinists from the plant my dad managed wanted to unionize and they had to elect to do so. And you know what? They won. Everything was cool until all the machinists realized that the union wasn't doing anything to fill the empty promises they made and it eventually lost all support.
I ran into an interesting piece while looking more into the topic (sorry about the article format...the non printer friendly version required registration): http://www.loyolamaroon.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=0b54eea7-2fa5-4789-93d2-9dceaf06dd41
Pretty much, unions may have been great during times when corporations were seldomly regulated, if ever for that matter. But it's not the same anymore. It all comes down to really simple economics; increased productivity of labor results in increased wages (note that here 'productivity' doesn't always mean physical throughput, but it can also mean value of labor of an individual). And contrary to popular belief, arbitrarily raising wages is generally a poor economic decision; you may have more money in your pocket, but the company can now hire less people and they must increase the price of their goods or services to compensate for the increased cost of labor.
So what does it all boil down to? Unions were fantastic in the early days of organized labor. Now, however, there is so much public pressure for the government to regulate business practices of public entities that unions just don't work anymore. They're basically a lobbyist group for workers who feel they are underpaid and overworked that can't guarantee any real results. - c28438, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Bishop" brings up a really good point, unions don't compete against the company, they compete against other workers. At my company the union reps (who were all senior union employees with many years of service) negotiated a fat contract that wound up getting about a third of all union employees laid off. As you might guess, the layoffs went by seniority and so the senior union members benefited at the expense of the younger members, many of whom had young families. The whole thing was downright evil and immoral in my opinion.
- jrsims, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15You guys think Bush will actually step down in 2008?
Here's what will happen. We will be at war with Iran by then, and the exact same tactics used to get us into Iraq will be what gets us into that war. It won't matter if we don't want this war and can see through the lies, because our Congress will be too spineless/incompetent/paid-off to support us (like now). Conveniently, this may also be accompanied or preceded by another spectacular terror attack on American soil. At this time, Bush will declare a state of national emergency and will retain the power to impose a "constitutional dictatorship" under the war powers act (which allows a president to remain beyond term limits, dissolve congress, impose martial law, and take complete control over the military.
Like the war on drugs, this new war on terror will be obviously futile and go on for years and years with no end in sight. America will be under its first dictatorship (more specifically, it will be what historians call a "benign" or "strong arm" dictatorship), and the first signs of a true police state will have manifested themselves.
...You heard it here first. Let the dig-downs ensue! :)
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush, December 18th, 2000. -
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is