if you can link newsmax then i can link this http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/29/pelosi-unions/
Pelosi's workers are paid $1.25 per hour more than the highest paid union worker at other napa valley farms.
Of the 300+ farms in Napa Valley only 4 are unionized. Almost all are paid better than those that are unionized.
As the owner, Pelosi is prohibited from encouraging her workers to create a union.

1/17/2007 1:00:02 PM

^ Unions negotiate things other than pay: benefits, leave, and so on. And it's more like Pelosi actively prevents unionization rather than can't promote it. Why does she sell to only non-union wineries? You may not understand this, but you have to practice what you preach--or you're a hypocrite. Get it?

1/17/2007 2:36:36 PM

Sure, it is no mystery that non-union workers are generally paid better than union workers.
My dad's company (that he works at, not owns) is a non-union shop that pays more than any union shop for the same work in the area.

His workers also have lower absentee rates and less displinary problems. That's because they can be fired at will, rather than on union terms, which are ridiculous.

1/17/2007 2:42:05 PM

^ It's Pelosi continually and loudly claiming to be pro-union and then acting in an anti-union manner that's the issue, dude.

1/17/2007 2:49:48 PM

How can she "act" pro-union when by law she can't ask for one as the owner?

1/17/2007 2:54:34 PM

Well, it seems to me that if I thought union shops were superior to non-union shops, I wouldn't have invested so much money into a union shop.

I mean, if she owned a sweat shop full of Chinese children, would you defend her because it is against Chinese law to criticize the sweatshop?

1/17/2007 2:58:33 PM

^^ There's not encouraging and then there's actively preventing. I'm not sure where she is on the scale. And keep in mind, she hires harvesters to pick her grapes--she could hire unionized companies, but it probably would eat into her profits. In addition, she could sell to unionized wineries--why doesn't she? I mean, the entire process--from field to bottle--is non-union. It just seems damned peculiar for someone who allegedly supports unions so much.

She also has a large stake in a hotel in Napa. Again, it employs many Hispanics and it is strictly non-union. I'm starting to see a trend here. . . .

1/17/2007 3:10:03 PM

I don't see the hypocrisy in giving someone the freedom to do something, but not actively practicing it yourself. I just don't.

How about I run a campaign to remove all speed limits from the interstate, but yet I'm not going to drive very fast myself because I feel that it isn't very safe.

Is that hypocrisy?

bgmims hit on it with his post.

1/17/2007 3:13:28 PM

Quote :

"she could hire unionized companies, but it probably would eat into her profits"

you say that while not disagreeing with bgmims assertion that unionized workers are paid less.

Quote :

"There's not encouraging and then there's actively preventing. I'm not sure where she is on the scale."

So you admit you have no basis for anything you are saying?

1/17/2007 3:23:10 PM

^^ Uh. . .what? Did you even read my post or are you having another argument in your head?

Quote :

"I'm not sure where she is on the scale."

As I posted, Pelosi doesn't have a "shop." She hires contractors--harvesters that happen to be non-union to pick the grapes from her vineyard. She then sells the harvested grapes to non-union wineries. What's so hard to understand? Pelosi seems to be allergic to unionization as it relates to her crop.

Concerning the hotel, she owns a large stake in the non-union operation. She doesn't have to own this stake. If you were against war, would you make a large investment in a weapons manufacturer? The answer is, of course, self-evident--unless you are a hypocrite.

^ Pay is not the only cost in running a business (direct materials, direct labor, and manufacturing/merchandising overhead). By not having the intrusion of union negotiation of benefits and other costly measures into her profits, a little more can be paid to workers and more profits gained, too.

The basis for my position is the book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer. I said I'm not sure where Pelosi falls on the scale because I think for myself. You should try it sometime.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 3:29:14 PM

Quote :

"^^ Uh. . .what? Did you even read my post or are you having another argument in your head?"

Yes, and comprehended it, and offered a nice analogy, to which you re-echoed what you just said.

I like how you tossed out a poignant example about war. If everything were only so black and white as you made it. But since you want to go that route, I guess if you were so opposed to war, you'd also not vote not to fund it, regardless of how many lives it cost.

1/17/2007 3:34:32 PM

but if you dont vote to fund it then you are abandoning the troops.

1/17/2007 3:35:55 PM

^^^She supports the workers' right to unionize. She's not saying she thinks everything should be unionized, and she only wants to buy, hire, and work with unionized groups.

She simply supports the workers' right to unionize.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : sss]

1/17/2007 3:36:27 PM

Quote :

"The basis for my position is the book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer. I said I'm not sure where Pelosi falls on the scale because I think for myself. You should try it sometime."

Im glad you have moved on from newsmax and are now using quality, unbiased research. congrats.

1/17/2007 3:39:36 PM

I actually think it's a rather refreshing thing to say "alright, I'll give you the ability to do this if you want, even though I don't believe in it".

Sounds like open mindedness more than hypocrisy if anything.

1/17/2007 3:41:16 PM

Pelosi supports abortion rights, yet I bet she's never even had one! What a hypocrite!

1/17/2007 3:47:08 PM

I bet she has had one.

1/17/2007 3:49:43 PM

To TypeA: The Democrats are worried that they will be seen as cutting off supplies to troops in battle--plain and simple. They are worried about political perception; if they could pull out tomorrow with no political damage to their party, they would do it in a second--to hell with the ramifications, which would reach Palestine and echo around the world. In addition, they would have a failure to use against Bush and the Republicans for years to come.

So, you're feeling "refreshed." That's special.

To RevoltNow: So, no facts can be gained from mass-consumption books? And Newsmax is not a regular source for me. This may come as a shock to you, but some of those liberal outlets just won't report the facts concerning what is happening. DOH!

To BridgetSPK:

Quote :

"she only wants to buy, hire, and work with unionized groups."

WTF are you talking about? The POINT is she DOESN'T support unions in HER process.

BTW, are you hissing at me in your edits?

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 3:54 PM. Reason : V Did I? It doesn't seem so.]

1/17/2007 3:50:32 PM

^you misread her post hook

1/17/2007 3:53:08 PM

no. you cant pull facts from books that are full of lies and act like its ok because a lot of people read it.

Quote :

"The POINT is she DOESN'T support unions in HER process."

No. The POINT is that you have NO PROOF for that assertion. The POINT is that you are using a book with a ton of fallicies to cause controversy.

Quote :

"if they could pull out tomorrow with no political damage to their party, they would do it in a second--to hell with the ramifications, which would reach Palestine and echo around the world. In addition, they would have a failure to use against Bush and the Republicans for years to come."

We already have that failure. First there is Iraq. Second there was Katrina. But, more to your point, I too think we should pull out toomorow. Because this war will not be "won" by our military. But, that is a discussion for a different thread.

1/17/2007 3:54:30 PM

^^^Sorry, I'll be clearer...

Quote :

"She's not saying she thinks everything should be unionized, and she's not saying she only wants to buy, hire, and work with unionized groups."

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 3:55 PM. Reason : sss]

1/17/2007 3:55:29 PM

^^ Well, find me a "scholarly"--but unbiased--source on the subject and I'll be happy to give it a look. I find that so laughable--and so many professors do it, too--if it's scholarly, it's not biased; what a joke! In addition, how do you know the book at issue is full of lies? I say it is not; the quotations are sourced, and I would love to see you present evidence that any of those facts are inaccurate.

You have no "proof" of ANYTHING, either. What we aim for, young one, is evidence--and I have all I need to form my opinion. Go get your own, and believe any damn thing you want--I don't care.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ^ Again, are you hissing or is it an emoticon?]

V I'm not a Republican, so I wouldn't know. I'm talking in terms of Democrat strategy--I'm not saying that the majority would want that to happen. I believe some would not care, though.

And stop using the words "nutty" or "wingnut," man. It's [old], and you do it every time somebody starts getting to you--you try to make them out to be some kind of nut. I assure you, I'm no nut; I just strongly oppose your espoused political views.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 4:03:46 PM

Quote :

"They are worried about political perception; if they could pull out tomorrow with no political damage to their party, they would do it in a second--to hell with the ramifications"

Wait, I thought the repubs were the heartless ones?

Thats a pretty bold statement to think that so many of our representatives would have no problem seeing American lives slaughtered because of the strokes of their pen.

Your comments are getting to be pretty nutty at this point.

It's a null hypothetical anyway to think about the war in these terms.

Quote :

"In addition, they would have a failure to use against Bush and the Republicans for years to come."

They are going to have one anyway. So far, neither side has presented a plan for true victory in any reasonable time frame.

Quote :

"You have no "proof" of ANYTHING, either. What we aim for, young one, is evidence--and I have all I need to form my opinion. Go get your own, and believe any damn thing you want--I don't care."

So basically TSB has turned into the place to type without actually reading what anyone else has to say now?

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : a]

1/17/2007 4:04:23 PM

we need more unflattering pictures and funny photoshops in this thread to prove a point.

1/17/2007 4:07:39 PM

^ You know, you're right.

1/17/2007 4:23:58 PM

JESUS CHRIST YOU'RE 40?

how do your kids/wife feel about this?

1/17/2007 4:25:45 PM

^ JESUS CHRIST! YOU'RE 22? How is it that you know every goddamned thing? I mean, it seems unlikely--but there it is.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ^ I like to have fun. Why don't you, college girl? ]



[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 4:37:38 PM

hooksaw is 40?

1/17/2007 4:38:36 PM

It's sad, isn't it?

1/17/2007 4:39:05 PM

^^i never said i did. PLEASE INSTILL IN ME THE VAST KNOWLEDGE YOU BEAT YOUR CHEST OVER.

^yes

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 4:39:18 PM

I think it's sad that some of you are so youth-obsessed and are blatant ageists. You have two choices in the journey of life, young ones: old or dead--take your fucking pick. Shit, I'll bet I look younger than most of you and can out-fuck you asses, too, you bunch of premature ejaculators.

Fuck anybody that doesn't like my age. I have a great life living in a townhouse with my fiancée--I don't have kids and I've never been divorced. I just do this for fun, so what's the fucking problem?

1/17/2007 4:48:16 PM

I think it's sad that you just defended yourself to a bunch of college kids.

1/17/2007 4:50:26 PM

We don't have a problem with your age.

We just think it's a little sad that someone your age acts and argues the way you do.

1/17/2007 4:50:53 PM

well, for one, i think you have an anger management problem that you should control before you get married to anyone.

i suggest you leave and find a place people dont care if thats how you're going to act, angry mcangerson.

you're acting like you're 16

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 4:51:05 PM

PS: Brad Pitt, 43

1/17/2007 4:52:16 PM

does he yell and scream and talk about how much of a mountain of intellect and sexual prowess he is online?

1/17/2007 4:53:19 PM

Quote :

"I think it's sad that some of you are so youth-obsessed and are blatant ageists. You have two choices in the journey of life, young ones: old or dead--take your fucking pick. Shit, I'll bet I look younger than most of you and can out-fuck you asses, too, you bunch of premature ejaculators. Fuck anybody that doesn't like my age. I have a great life living in a townhouse with my fiancée--I don't have kids and I've never been divorced. I just do this for fun, so what's the fucking problem?"

The problem is that you say stuff like this:

Quote :

"Shit, I'll bet I look younger than most of you and can out-fuck you asses, too, you bunch of premature ejaculators."

Who says stuff like that?

1/17/2007 4:53:21 PM

Get sad on my sack. I don't have an anger-management problem, I'm just fucking tired of that "old" bullshit.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ^ I do. ]

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 4:56 PM. Reason : V I'm not going to take the bait, little bitch. ]

1/17/2007 4:54:28 PM

you're old

1/17/2007 4:55:49 PM

I BET MY VAGINA IS TIGHTER THAN ALL OF YOUR VAGINAS, AND I REALLY KNOW HOW TO WORK IT!!!

Don't you see how fucking obnoxious and ridiculous that sounds, hooksaw.

1/17/2007 4:59:21 PM

tips for the future:

1. listen to what people say, even those who disagree with you
2. don't dish personal insults unless you can take them
3. realize you might not have the right answer
4. accept criticism
5. dont talk about your sex explosions

1/17/2007 5:00:22 PM

^^ Shit, I'll bet it ain't--and I'll bet you do.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 5:01 PM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : ^ I've got a "tip" you can get on.]

1/17/2007 5:01:21 PM

so now youre 16?

you dont act for one second like you're anywhere near your age in maturity.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 5:02:44 PM

This guy blows.

1/17/2007 5:06:11 PM

^^ Good.

^ You know what you can blow?

1/17/2007 5:08:34 PM

this thread has started to suck

Nancy Pelosi sucks

Tom Delay sucked

and there are two other threads about Nancy Pelosi sucking

so i'm locking this one

1/18/2007 4:57:24 PM