Coffee (rec.drink.coffee) Discussing coffee. This includes selection of brands, methods of making coffee, etc. Discussion about coffee in other forms (e.g. desserts) is acceptable.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-06-2004, 10:15 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:58:08 -0700, Dan Clore
wrote:

zztop8970 wrote:
"G*rd*n" wrote in message
...
:

Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
thugs?


"G*rd*n" :

One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilą!
Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?

"zztop8970" :

That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
unionized".
But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a

"protection"
scam.

I simply answered wrjames's question directly.


No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier employees to
unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
skills leave much to be desired.


No, the question was "Why would any company want their
employees following organized crime thugs?"

On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.



Nonsense. It's precisely about unionizing.

William R. James


  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-06-2004, 10:15 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:58:08 -0700, Dan Clore
wrote:

zztop8970 wrote:
"G*rd*n" wrote in message
...
:

Why would any company want their employees following organized crime
thugs?


"G*rd*n" :

One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilą!
Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?

"zztop8970" :

That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers have
unionized".
But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a

"protection"
scam.

I simply answered wrjames's question directly.


No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier employees to
unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
skills leave much to be desired.


No, the question was "Why would any company want their
employees following organized crime thugs?"

On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.



Nonsense. It's precisely about unionizing.

William R. James

  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-06-2004, 10:39 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:51:21 GMT, "Alex Russell"
wrote:

"zztop8970" wrote in message
.com...

"Dan Clore" wrote in message
...
zztop8970 wrote:
"G*rd*n" wrote in message
...
:

Why would any company want their employees following organized

crime
thugs?

"G*rd*n" :

One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilą!
Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?

"zztop8970" :

That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers

have
unionized".
But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
"protection"
scam.

I simply answered wrjames's question directly.

No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier

employees to
unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
skills leave much to be desired.

No, the question was "Why would any company want their
employees following organized crime thugs?"

On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.


In the context, it is obvious that WmJames was referring to unions as
"organized crime thugs".
This usage of context to infer meanings is usually mastered by 6th grade.

It
is never too late to take a class in remedial reading.


My, My, My, but did the IQ of this thread ever drop quickly.

But within the juvenile mudslinging there are a few important points being
brought out:

1.
If I decide that my best interests are served by joining a union how do I
make sure I am not joining a corrupt union that will simply steal my dues?


Refuse to participate in dues checkoff. And also refuse to sign any
contract which requires you to honor a picket line. Have you ever
been in on union negotiation when a union first gets into a company?
If not, ask someone who has. The FIRST thing on the table in dues
check off. They want that before they discuss anything else. Wanna
guess why? And every union contract with the members gives them the
authority to fine you for crosing a picket line.

2.
Why are freedom loving capitalists so against unions? Couldn't have anything
to do with higher wages and improved benifits eating into profits?


No one cares if you join a club. People like me object to government
telling people they have to do business with the union. If I hire
someone to do something, that's an agreement between be and the person
to whom I and trading my money for the labor. If he wants to join a
labor union, the boy scouts, the NAACP or the KKK, that's his
business, not mine. If He sends a representitive to me to negotiate a
contract, I reserve the right to tell them to take a hike, and to tell
hiom to take a hike if he doesn't do the work. If he stands in frnt
of the business carrying a silly sign instead of showing up for work,
I reserve the right to cease buying labor from him and hire someone
willing to show up.

Why do the union nuts think it's ok for one party in the trade to
terminate the relationship at aly time for whetever reason he sees fit
but not the other? If the employee can quit whenever he wants, whay
shouldn't the eployer have the same right?

3.
Why do freedom loving capitalists NOT rise up against cartels and monoplies
that distort the "natural" operation of the free market? Couldn't have
anything to do with artifically driving prices and profits up?


Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
for a living from going to work.

I would answer that plain old greed is the answer to 2 and 3. And the
answer to 1 is a bit of due diligence.


Just don't sell your rights to criminals. It's that simple. If your
labor has value, you don't need a union to get the best price. You
only need a union if you are overpaid.

A new question: are there situations where a monoply makes sense for the
average citizen (I'll puke the next time someone refers to me as a
"consumer")?


Depends on how you define it. There are few examples of where
monopolies breaking up didn't result in higher prices. The reason is
apparently simple efficency. The monpolies got that way by heavy
streamlining, cost cutting and underpricing all the competetion.
Imagine Walmart, for example, taking over all the retail housewares
business. They would have to do that by underpricing everyone else
even more than they already do. They do that by buying in huge bulk
amounts that small businesses can't. If they because a monopoly, that
effect would be even greater. All the wholesalers would only have one
customer to deal with making their operations more efficient as well.

Not that monopolies are good, it's beste toi have competetion for a
lot of reasons. But prices aren't the issue. For the consumer,
monopolies are better at keeping the prices down.

William R. James

  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-06-2004, 10:39 PM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:51:21 GMT, "Alex Russell"
wrote:

"zztop8970" wrote in message
.com...

"Dan Clore" wrote in message
...
zztop8970 wrote:
"G*rd*n" wrote in message
...
:

Why would any company want their employees following organized

crime
thugs?

"G*rd*n" :

One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilą!
Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?

"zztop8970" :

That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers

have
unionized".
But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
"protection"
scam.

I simply answered wrjames's question directly.

No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier

employees to
unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
skills leave much to be desired.

No, the question was "Why would any company want their
employees following organized crime thugs?"

On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.


In the context, it is obvious that WmJames was referring to unions as
"organized crime thugs".
This usage of context to infer meanings is usually mastered by 6th grade.

It
is never too late to take a class in remedial reading.


My, My, My, but did the IQ of this thread ever drop quickly.

But within the juvenile mudslinging there are a few important points being
brought out:

1.
If I decide that my best interests are served by joining a union how do I
make sure I am not joining a corrupt union that will simply steal my dues?


Refuse to participate in dues checkoff. And also refuse to sign any
contract which requires you to honor a picket line. Have you ever
been in on union negotiation when a union first gets into a company?
If not, ask someone who has. The FIRST thing on the table in dues
check off. They want that before they discuss anything else. Wanna
guess why? And every union contract with the members gives them the
authority to fine you for crosing a picket line.

2.
Why are freedom loving capitalists so against unions? Couldn't have anything
to do with higher wages and improved benifits eating into profits?


No one cares if you join a club. People like me object to government
telling people they have to do business with the union. If I hire
someone to do something, that's an agreement between be and the person
to whom I and trading my money for the labor. If he wants to join a
labor union, the boy scouts, the NAACP or the KKK, that's his
business, not mine. If He sends a representitive to me to negotiate a
contract, I reserve the right to tell them to take a hike, and to tell
hiom to take a hike if he doesn't do the work. If he stands in frnt
of the business carrying a silly sign instead of showing up for work,
I reserve the right to cease buying labor from him and hire someone
willing to show up.

Why do the union nuts think it's ok for one party in the trade to
terminate the relationship at aly time for whetever reason he sees fit
but not the other? If the employee can quit whenever he wants, whay
shouldn't the eployer have the same right?

3.
Why do freedom loving capitalists NOT rise up against cartels and monoplies
that distort the "natural" operation of the free market? Couldn't have
anything to do with artifically driving prices and profits up?


Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
for a living from going to work.

I would answer that plain old greed is the answer to 2 and 3. And the
answer to 1 is a bit of due diligence.


Just don't sell your rights to criminals. It's that simple. If your
labor has value, you don't need a union to get the best price. You
only need a union if you are overpaid.

A new question: are there situations where a monoply makes sense for the
average citizen (I'll puke the next time someone refers to me as a
"consumer")?


Depends on how you define it. There are few examples of where
monopolies breaking up didn't result in higher prices. The reason is
apparently simple efficency. The monpolies got that way by heavy
streamlining, cost cutting and underpricing all the competetion.
Imagine Walmart, for example, taking over all the retail housewares
business. They would have to do that by underpricing everyone else
even more than they already do. They do that by buying in huge bulk
amounts that small businesses can't. If they because a monopoly, that
effect would be even greater. All the wholesalers would only have one
customer to deal with making their operations more efficient as well.

Not that monopolies are good, it's beste toi have competetion for a
lot of reasons. But prices aren't the issue. For the consumer,
monopolies are better at keeping the prices down.

William R. James

  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-06-2004, 02:55 AM
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Wm James" wrote in message
...
Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
for a living from going to work.


Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
collectively bargain. There must be balance in our system of law or there is
not law but legalized anarchy by those controlling the law. That is the
essence of capitalism in America today. Slowly but surely business is
strangling the good out of America to profit by it. When major cartels
control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
all that is available. I suspect you find yourself in what you believe is
some safe haven from this legalized anarchy. Only time will tell, but I doubt
it. If not you, then your children or grandchildren will pay the price for
this short term frenzy of greed.


  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-06-2004, 02:55 AM
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Wm James" wrote in message
...
Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
for a living from going to work.


Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
collectively bargain. There must be balance in our system of law or there is
not law but legalized anarchy by those controlling the law. That is the
essence of capitalism in America today. Slowly but surely business is
strangling the good out of America to profit by it. When major cartels
control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
all that is available. I suspect you find yourself in what you believe is
some safe haven from this legalized anarchy. Only time will tell, but I doubt
it. If not you, then your children or grandchildren will pay the price for
this short term frenzy of greed.


  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-06-2004, 04:23 AM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:55:18 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:


"Wm James" wrote in message
.. .
Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
for a living from going to work.


Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
collectively bargain. There must be balance in our system of law or there is
not law but legalized anarchy by those controlling the law. That is the
essence of capitalism in America today. Slowly but surely business is
strangling the good out of America to profit by it. When major cartels
control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
all that is available. I suspect you find yourself in what you believe is
some safe haven from this legalized anarchy. Only time will tell, but I doubt
it. If not you, then your children or grandchildren will pay the price for
this short term frenzy of greed.


What a crock! I want government to protect all people's freedom to
trade. That includes the workers' right to trade their labor for
whatever they want, whether more or les than what you or a union or a
company think is enough. It also includes those joining unions right
to only trade their labor collectively. It also includes a company's
right NOT to trade with those who insist on trading their labor
collectively.

I hope my children and grandchildren develop valuable skills and work
ethics and thus have no use for unions. If your kids are picking the
pockets of businesses and people who actually work for a living, then
the businesses will have more money to spend buying labor from my
kids.

William R. James

  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-06-2004, 04:23 AM
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:55:18 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:


"Wm James" wrote in message
.. .
Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
for a living from going to work.


Interesting that you are all for the government protecting those willing to
work for less but don't want any government protections for those wishing to
collectively bargain. There must be balance in our system of law or there is
not law but legalized anarchy by those controlling the law. That is the
essence of capitalism in America today. Slowly but surely business is
strangling the good out of America to profit by it. When major cartels
control the costs of labor, labor will work for poverty wages because that is
all that is available. I suspect you find yourself in what you believe is
some safe haven from this legalized anarchy. Only time will tell, but I doubt
it. If not you, then your children or grandchildren will pay the price for
this short term frenzy of greed.


What a crock! I want government to protect all people's freedom to
trade. That includes the workers' right to trade their labor for
whatever they want, whether more or les than what you or a union or a
company think is enough. It also includes those joining unions right
to only trade their labor collectively. It also includes a company's
right NOT to trade with those who insist on trading their labor
collectively.

I hope my children and grandchildren develop valuable skills and work
ethics and thus have no use for unions. If your kids are picking the
pockets of businesses and people who actually work for a living, then
the businesses will have more money to spend buying labor from my
kids.

William R. James



  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-06-2004, 06:17 AM
Alex Russell
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?


"Stan de SD" wrote in message
.net...

"Alex Russell" wrote in message
news[email protected]
"Stan de SD" wrote in message
news

"Dan Clore" wrote in message
...
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
June 1, 2004
Contact:
Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote

Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?

New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
members across the country have condemned repeated attempts
by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics
in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain.

Supporters around the country and internationally are
contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over
$17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks,
with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
place to work.

Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being

forced
to
work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a
sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, spoiled
cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.

Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
what in the hell do YOU do for a living?

Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger?


Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody is
being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever
corporate villian du juor that grabs the attention of Clore & Co. on a

given
day. If you think the company sucks, quit and work somewhere else. If you
think that all companies suck, start your OWN business and exploit

yourself.

All the people whining and crying about the afforementioned companies act
like the people who work there are being deprived of alternatives

somewhere
else, when they aren't. If they aren't pulling down $100K/year with
benefits, it's not because some retail/fast-food chain is holding them
hostage and keeping them from working at Microsoft - it's because they
simply lack the job skills to do better. Given that education is free

until
12th grade, and community colleges are ubiquitous and still relatively
cheap, whose damn fault is it when somebody refuses to take advantage of

the
educational opportunities available in this country and can't do better

than
flipping burgers and working a computerized cash register?


So you think unions should be outlawed? Why shouldn't employees be allowed
to unionize?

The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.

And I still fail to see how insulting Dan furthers your own arguments. It is
possible for people to hold different opinions, and yet respect each other.

--
Alex Russell



  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-06-2004, 06:17 AM
Alex Russell
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?


"Stan de SD" wrote in message
.net...

"Alex Russell" wrote in message
news[email protected]
"Stan de SD" wrote in message
news

"Dan Clore" wrote in message
...
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
June 1, 2004
Contact:
Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote

Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?

New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
members across the country have condemned repeated attempts
by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude tactics
in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
first union certified in the United States at the mammoth chain.

Supporters around the country and internationally are
contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in over
$17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is Starbucks,
with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
place to work.

Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are being

forced
to
work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would think it's a
sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of feminized, spoiled
cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.

Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
what in the hell do YOU do for a living?

Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the messenger?


Came up with an argument that when right over your little head. Nobody is
being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or whatever
corporate villian du juor that grabs the attention of Clore & Co. on a

given
day. If you think the company sucks, quit and work somewhere else. If you
think that all companies suck, start your OWN business and exploit

yourself.

All the people whining and crying about the afforementioned companies act
like the people who work there are being deprived of alternatives

somewhere
else, when they aren't. If they aren't pulling down $100K/year with
benefits, it's not because some retail/fast-food chain is holding them
hostage and keeping them from working at Microsoft - it's because they
simply lack the job skills to do better. Given that education is free

until
12th grade, and community colleges are ubiquitous and still relatively
cheap, whose damn fault is it when somebody refuses to take advantage of

the
educational opportunities available in this country and can't do better

than
flipping burgers and working a computerized cash register?


So you think unions should be outlawed? Why shouldn't employees be allowed
to unionize?

The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.

And I still fail to see how insulting Dan furthers your own arguments. It is
possible for people to hold different opinions, and yet respect each other.

--
Alex Russell



  #148 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-06-2004, 07:25 AM
Politics in America
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Michael Legel" wrote in message
s.com...

"Wm James" wrote in message
...
Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it!


I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to be served
by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people. People
come first. People are more important than money, machines, technology and
quarterly returns.

The idea of people competing against one another for lower wages, or less
health care is extremely foolish.

This type of competition has been tried before, and it always results in
failure. When left unchecked, it often results in wars. Greater competition
between nations led to WWI, WWII and almost to WWIII.

It is a foolish notion to suggest people should compete for a limited amount
of goods instead of sharing what was available and working together with
good morals to create more.

Life is not a race or competitive struggle. People are not animals who must
compete against each other for everything from money, jobs and women. Books
that teach this should be thrown in the garbage can and banned from all
school systems in America as being "anti-social".

Civilized people use common sense and forgiveness to solve problems.
Civilized people know that cooperation creates far more happiness for
everyone and reduces social problems dramatically.

Countries who have seen too much war already, like Germany and Japan, should
put all their funding in the American democratic party. The Republican
party's platform is one that is heading towards war.

Whichever nations want to see a calmer, more peaceful America, and a more
peaceful world, should support Kerry and the democrats 100%.

The stripping of American worker benefits and shipping of good American jobs
overseas is destabilizing America to a point which will not benefit other
nations of the world. It is creating a dangerous, unstable environment in a
nation that has 30,000 nuclear warheads.

Vote Democrat for a return of jobs to America
http://www.johnkerry.com/

Good Social programs needed in America
http://members.fcc.net/workgroup5/social/social.html



  #149 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-06-2004, 07:25 AM
Politics in America
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Michael Legel" wrote in message
s.com...

"Wm James" wrote in message
...
Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it!


I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to be served
by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people. People
come first. People are more important than money, machines, technology and
quarterly returns.

The idea of people competing against one another for lower wages, or less
health care is extremely foolish.

This type of competition has been tried before, and it always results in
failure. When left unchecked, it often results in wars. Greater competition
between nations led to WWI, WWII and almost to WWIII.

It is a foolish notion to suggest people should compete for a limited amount
of goods instead of sharing what was available and working together with
good morals to create more.

Life is not a race or competitive struggle. People are not animals who must
compete against each other for everything from money, jobs and women. Books
that teach this should be thrown in the garbage can and banned from all
school systems in America as being "anti-social".

Civilized people use common sense and forgiveness to solve problems.
Civilized people know that cooperation creates far more happiness for
everyone and reduces social problems dramatically.

Countries who have seen too much war already, like Germany and Japan, should
put all their funding in the American democratic party. The Republican
party's platform is one that is heading towards war.

Whichever nations want to see a calmer, more peaceful America, and a more
peaceful world, should support Kerry and the democrats 100%.

The stripping of American worker benefits and shipping of good American jobs
overseas is destabilizing America to a point which will not benefit other
nations of the world. It is creating a dangerous, unstable environment in a
nation that has 30,000 nuclear warheads.

Vote Democrat for a return of jobs to America
http://www.johnkerry.com/

Good Social programs needed in America
http://members.fcc.net/workgroup5/social/social.html



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Celebrating Six Months of IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the TwinCities Dan Clore Coffee 1 12-02-2009 12:42 AM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Coffee 0 12-12-2006 08:12 PM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Recipes 0 12-12-2006 08:11 PM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017