tvashtarkatena

What I said.... No one on this forum even remotely suggested this. What I suggested was a nationwide retirement benefit system, including healthcare costs, for retirees from successful companies. This has nothing to do with maintaining employment or restructuring the economy to aid otherwise unsuccessful companies. This system would allow workers to transfer between industries and geographic regions without having to start from scratch, something that would certainly help the 'market' resolve labor supply and demand imbalances without additional government intervention. Companies would still have to produce what people want. Duh.

Juicy pics. I'll have to put this one on the list.

Any carpool/gas money possibilities or is your vehicle full? I can seat 4.

Thick, long, self lubricated, streamline appendages with suction capability, and lots of them. Not a looker, perhaps, but looks aren't everything.

Served in the Coast Guard = You're a better man than me. All of the commissary privileges with none of the work.

It would amount to a redistribution of liabilities so that companies such as GM who are committed to meeting the commitments they've made to their workforce after retirement can play on the same level playing field as everyone else. Otherwise, you have what we see today: Older companies being cost penalized for acting morally by actually taking care of their retirees, ie, doing the right thing. In business terms, it is a way to amortize benefit ratios (payers in/retirees) across a broader geographic area: one of globalization's primary goals...and I know you like globalization. Now, if you're a NEW conservative, to renig on such a commitment would probably be seen as a good thing. Any scam in a storm! If, however, you're a true conservative, you would certainly agree that such amortization of retirement costs across a broader geographic area, and fluidity (mobility) of labor due to benefits that would transfer from job to job, would only lower the cost of doing business for everyone (it's awful expensive when your largest industry goes belly up), and thus provide an excellent free market solution to a pressing problem. What I said....

Or some Chinese management.

It's not hard to manage better than the US auto industry. And a quick analysis of other long lived companies (in the steel industry, for example) reveals that the auto companies are just the biggest tip of a larger iceberg. The oil companies do seem to be doing well, though. I wonder why?

The ribs, beer, and kiddie bartenders (already trained on mojitos and cosmos, but martinis are easy to learn) I can manage. Our recent military visitors have been tits on a bull useless in scoring me an AK AK gun, though.

Served in the US Navy = please continue with your buggery

one of the wisest things i've ever heard in spray I don't know. I feel better talking about it.

No one, much less GM, has claimed this.

I believe Tvash actually meant an ack ack gun, not an AK47. You know, like this: Yes, although I prefer the four barrel version. Well, what good is that? Do you know how much space the ammo will take up in the 2 car garage? You wont be able to park your car in there anymore. Second, that ammo weighs a lot. Who is going to bring the ammon over to the weapon? You gotta consider how much the little kids can carry at a time. Maybe less than 6 rounds can be carried by a 6 y.o. Even in Africa and E. Europe, most AA weapons operators are 12 or older because the warlords know how much the little kids can carry. Also keep in mind that your ability to move and evade is seriously restricted and you will need a truck to move that baby. Big target. The four barrel version will eat up ammo twice a fast. I'm still for small arms. Or, a 50 cal. BMG type weapon. hehe My two car garage is so full of junk I can't get into it anyway. An AK AK would fit perfectly on the flat pitched roof (with some beam reinforcement, perhaps). The next door neighbor even took down the beautiful doug firs that would block my line of fire (bitch!). As for reloading; if you sent out an email to all your friends saying "Hey, come on over. I've got ribs on the barbie, all the beer you can drink, and an AK AK gun that needs firing", how many reloaders do you think you'd have at your disposal? I don't know about you, but I can safely say that I could probably charge a hefty fee for the privilege. The idea of using 6 year olds to hump ammo is ludicrous. They'd been too busy mixing martinis.

Hey sport, just having been to Somalia doesn't make you black. Most people are not white. Albinos maybe. Most CAUCASIANS I know are a shade of pink or a light tan. He never did say what kind of non-white he was? Maybe a coward yellow color. ( No, asians are not yellow) Even us Irish probably have a Moor or two hiding in the peat pile somewhere.

Health and retirement. The average GM laborer carries 2.6 retirees on his back, to the tune of about $1,500 per vehicle produced. On the flip side, UAW wages at GM are not substantially different than those at Honda and Toyota USA. Steadily advancing worker productivity has prevented GM's COG direct labor component from ballooning to become a substantial factor in their demise. Other factors I did not mention is GM's bloated dealership network and product line. Basically, across the board poor management (including the way they've dealt with the UAW) coupled with economic policies than penalize long lived corporations with burdensome retirement benefit costs, has lead to GM's imminent bankruptcy.

[quote=JayB I can cite quite a number of examples where unions have been instrumental in destroying the basis of their own employment, such as at GM. No, I don't believe you can, actually. GM self destructed due to a number of factors, the primary one being that they did not choose to produce what the market wanted to buy. Their profit margin, for example, on their SUV and light truck lines is hefty: they just stuck with these monsters long after demand for them began to decline. In addition, GM suffers more than other automakers from a poor pay in to pay out ratio for their enormous retirement/benefit plans. Ironically, this is a result of their longevity, or continued success; the longer they stay in business and more productive (per employee) they become, the more retired folks they need to cover with fewer active workers paying into the plan. GM is a poster child for doing away with corporation based retirement benefits plans and replacing them with a single nationwide plan which would level the playing field for older companies, like GM, who have tried to make good on their commitment to their retired workforce. In addition, such a nationwide plan would make our workforce much more fluid, a good thing to correct regional and industry by industry labor imbalances. Given your free market POV, I'm sure you'd agree with me that such a single payer system would be a good idea. I've read nothing credible which points to unions as the main cause of GM's demise.

A Merl Haggard/Thomas Dolby duet?

I recently read that the builders of the pyramids used cement blocks for some of the upper tiers. Fucking posers.

For all you union critics out there: Research working conditions in 1900, prior to the labor movement, and let us know how great it would be to return to them. You might also let us know why we should put our complete trust in corporate executive management. After all, they're such an admirable bunch.

Skiied Wed and it was amazing. I'm in Seattle. PM me if interested.

I find that importing bales of cocaine via home-made submarine saves me loads of tax preparation time.

The most effective form of gun control for the trigger-minded: Wear a condom.

That rule works for non firing arm toting children too. We had that one firmly established at summer camp when I was a kid. Some other kids killed a rattler one day with some rocks. Guess what was for din din that night? Respect life. You never know; one day some giant cosmic bullet might just use us for target practice.

His sideburns are pointed right at her Vger.

One might get the impression from Sheaf's dramatic accounts of fierce, daily combat that he lost half his squad in Somalia. Unfortunately, as usual, the numbers don't support this fantasy. Total US combat casualties in Somalia amounted to 29 guys over 2 years. 18 of those were killed in a single day during the 'Black Hawk Down' raid to capture Aideed, an operation which S.S. clearly didn't directly participate in (or he'd be bragging about it). That leaves 11. No, what actually occured was S.S. lost one of his guys during a training exercise before he even deployed to Somalia. Well, guess what? My nephew held his dying friend after he broke his back in an airborne exercise in Arkansas, but he doesn't feel the need to foist that experience on anyone else. The difference was, my nephew wasn't the squad leader, so he wasn't partially responsible for the death of that compatriot. Tough breaks, to be sure, but they in no way bestow upon their witnesses 'John Wayne' status over others who've been lucky enough not to have had the same experience. As for his criticism of Clinton, uh, excuse me, but the military on the ground, not Clinton, fucked up the Aideed raid by killing over 500 Somalis in the process of trying to take out one guy. We were on a nation building campaign, for fuck's sake, and we wound up killing a good portion of the nation we were trying to help. The U.S. soundly lost the 'hearts and minds' of Somalis during that raid. Clinton did a 180 after the raid. I believe he recognized that we were not going to be able to make good with the Somali people after our killing spree. We can argue forever whether or not continuing to pursue Aideed would have produced better results in Somalia, but considering the other warlords waiting in line for the top position, this outcome seems unlikely. I've known plenty of hardcore combat vets. A climbing buddy with 3 tours special forces in Vietnam. My father's own 2 tours. I've never met one, not one, that ever wanted to talk, much less brag, about his combat experiences. One thing they all seem to share is a quiet acceptance and grace regarding the terrible things they experienced. Not a one had any notion to foist their horrific memories on anyone else. Finally, as for my stint in the Navy in the late 70's early 80', even a blowhard like you, Sheaf, should be fucking glad I never saw combat, because it would have taken the form of a strategic nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, and you wouldn't be here to regale us with stories of blood on your bootlaces. And that's the point. Combat is something to be avoided. It is the end result of the worst of what our species is capable of, not something to be proud of or celebrated. It is tragic human failure, and, as such, regrettable.