-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wal-mart stampede
- Thread starter Ps104_33
- Start date
- Status
LeBuick said:
From what I saw on the news the night they showed them coming with new glass, the door was not broken down but the glass was shattered (but still in the door). I think probably the door was pushed in suddenly and the mechanism broken but I'm not 100% sure since I wasn't there to see it. But we're local to the incident so our news gets more up close with it all.
windcatcher
New Member
LeBuick said:
Because you're trying so hard and are being nice....... I'll try to explain.
Some statements are 'all or nothing' type statements. No matter who makes these, the statements are usually wrong.
Tim states his opinion but he is not entirely correct if he says 'its liberals' who blame someone besides who needs to be blamed.
Why?
Because all it takes is one conservative who does the same thing or one liberal that does not .... and his whole statement is false.
However, Tim has not called anyone a name, although anyone who identifies himself as being 'liberal' may be offended by the error of Tim's characterization... particularly so if he agrees with Tim's statement that 'its not WalMart's fault.' Thus Tim has ostracized those who are 'liberal' but who would have agreed with him.
Now, lets add a little to the fun.....
LeBuick takes Tim's comment a little further and declares "Wow, I bet windcatcher and sag38 were never accused of being Liberal before..."
Actually TinyTim never called sag38 nor WC 'liberal'. LeBuick is drawing this as his own conclusion which is faulty and does not naturally follow, if the context of Tim's statement and sag38, and wc is read.
If sag38 statement or wc statement is read.... while each of these posters opine that WalMart bears some responsibility....neither suggested by their postings that it was all WalMart's fault. Even tinytim states "(not saying anyone here is guilty of blaming walmart.. but it seems that Walmart is getting the blame in the media)
Everyone that trampled him, or passed him by, should be tried for manslaughter."
So, while tinytim voices strong opposition to the claim of WalMart's fault....he has absolved (correctly) from accusing anyone in this thread of totally blaming WalMart.
LeBuick, what I find so funny is that tinytim gave a generalized characterization....which logically could be seen as false, and you take it out of context and mis-characterize sag38 and wc by calling them names....sort of, and don't realize it when you do this. .........Hey......in this instance I just find it funny.
Please don't take this post too seriously. Hopefully, we can all learn to be more objective in our communications and slow to accuse or call names or take personally the generalized characterizations which occassionally slip out in error in our opinions.
Peace!
Well, it didn't take long for people to use this tragedy to promote their agenda...
According to the "genius" quoted in the story, this wouldn't have happened if Wal-mart had been unionized.
Riiiiiight. Of course, he could be right: There might not be enough customers to cause any problems.
But seriously, it's sad to see them using this man's death as an excuse to push their agenda.
SOURCE
According to the "genius" quoted in the story, this wouldn't have happened if Wal-mart had been unionized.
Riiiiiight. Of course, he could be right: There might not be enough customers to cause any problems.
But seriously, it's sad to see them using this man's death as an excuse to push their agenda.
SOURCE
A follow-up: From the story...
This would do away with the "secret ballot" vote for whether or not a business wants to go union.
Let me tell you what would happen...based on my first-hand experiences:
The union vote would come up. Folks who were anti-union, or skeptical, or unsure, would be cajoled, pestered, and eventually harrassed (and possibly intimidated). It would be a done deal.
Several years ago, I worked for a transportation company when I was in seminary. They were teamsters; and for a day or two I refused to join.
My tires were slashed, and I was told that if I didn't join, I wouldn't be allowed to work there. (We were "casual" employees...which technically meant that we called in every day to see if we worked. It was a formality; we always were told to come in...yet; had I not joined, I would have called every day, and been told, "no.")
Should I have called the cops? Probably...but, at the time, I was a newlywed; we were broke; my wife was struggling and depressed; we barely had enough money to pay our rent...so I did it. I joined the Teamsters. (of course, I was quietly told it would not be good for me to make noise about the issue).
But as you can see, to put it bluntly: I think unions engage in some despicable practices.
This would do away with the "secret ballot" vote for whether or not a business wants to go union.
Let me tell you what would happen...based on my first-hand experiences:
The union vote would come up. Folks who were anti-union, or skeptical, or unsure, would be cajoled, pestered, and eventually harrassed (and possibly intimidated). It would be a done deal.
Several years ago, I worked for a transportation company when I was in seminary. They were teamsters; and for a day or two I refused to join.
My tires were slashed, and I was told that if I didn't join, I wouldn't be allowed to work there. (We were "casual" employees...which technically meant that we called in every day to see if we worked. It was a formality; we always were told to come in...yet; had I not joined, I would have called every day, and been told, "no.")
Should I have called the cops? Probably...but, at the time, I was a newlywed; we were broke; my wife was struggling and depressed; we barely had enough money to pay our rent...so I did it. I joined the Teamsters. (of course, I was quietly told it would not be good for me to make noise about the issue).
But as you can see, to put it bluntly: I think unions engage in some despicable practices.
Now it appears that any type of crowd control short of a squad or two of fully armored riot police may not have been able to prevent this incident-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461704,00.html
How about this---
Let's blame the weather!!!:smilewinkgrin:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461704,00.html
How about this---
Let's blame the weather!!!:smilewinkgrin:
Mexdeaf said:
Actually it sounds completely plausible.
windcatcher said:
You conservatives are good at semantics and misdirections.
Bush won by 2% and Rove announces it's a mandate from the people.
Obama won by 7% and today Rove says, "the conservative party has been remade" because Chambliss won the great red state of GA. :thumbsup:
I love how y'all do that... :laugh:
rbell said:
The act says the cards people sign is sufficient. No vote is really necessary. I've never really been involved in a union vote, what is the difference between the card signing and the actual election? Why do you need both and not one or the other?
rbell said:
That wasn't the union, those were your co-workers... ouch... :tonofbricks:
LeBuick said:
If your vote isn't secret, then you are subject to intimidation. Anyone who thinks that won't happen lives in a dream world.
LeBuick said:
Hang around a union shop for a while. The first anti-union statement you make will negate the "co-worker" relationship, and quick.
Watch what happens when someone breaks a picket line. Unions are bad news in most cases nowadays.
LeBuick said:
I have no idea what signing cards has to do with voting. Typical voting in Unions is just like voting everywhere else. BY secret ballot with no name attached to a particular vote. There is no good reason to do away with secret ballots.
Revmitchell said:
I thought that was what this was about, the Free Choice Act says the union can represent the workers based on a majority of the members signing cards. Currently they have to vote and from what I'm gathering, the signed cards is what brings the union representation to a vote.
Let's say 70% of the workers sign a card saying they want representation. It would be logical that 70% will vote for the union or why would 70% sign a card. This is the logic I'm seeing in this thing, but again, I've never been involved in the process so don't know what I'm missing.
I guess there are variables like if people are forced to sign cards, if people can be tricked into signing cards, can these cards be forged or altered, do you sign them in front of witnesses etc...
It sounds like the union publishes a list of the non-signers so that the union muscle know who to focus on. I agree this would be a bad idea. In this case I would probably sign the card just to force the ballot where I would politely vote against the union to put the whole thing to rest... That's my $00.02
- Status