Previous 31 - 40 Next
Brave, Daniel! I don't usually read most Townhall writers as most seem to have pretty much the same ideas, but I was intrigued by the title of your essay. I knew that I hated the Mich right-to-work (for less) act, but you have made the case in an unusual way. Some companies (maybe GM and some other huge corps) may want to remain union shops, and that should be their right. Unions do sometimes help enforce discipline and they definitely reduce turnover, which is the bane of many employers. However, after you brilliantly stated your libertarian case for keeping the gov't out, you contradicted yourself by then saying you were glad that Mich passed the new law.
In response to:

The Fall of the House of Labor

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 2:14 PM
OneForFreedom -- Workers in highly skilled professions, such as yourself, have never needed unions as much as the rank and file worker on the floor - whether it be in a factory or office. Workers who are considered semi-skilled can be replaced fairly easily. It is these workers most in need of a union to prevent arbitrary dismissal by an employer. Again, if you want to keep your job in a totally non-union environment, you'd better keep your mouth shut (this may also apply to engineers as all can be replaced). Workplaces are not democracies.
In response to:

The Fall of the House of Labor

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:58 PM
Corbett -- To say that unions are 'anti-worker' is nuts. I used to work in an 'agency' shop where no one was forced to join the union, but they had to at least pay a fee for the cost of union representaion. To eliminate these fees is the death of the union as most will not then join. Such people may be saving a little money in the short-term, but it will cost them long-term. Without a union, the employer has all control and can fire someone just because they don't like the way they look. Don't dare open your mouth if you want to work for a non-union employer.
In response to:

The Fall of the House of Labor

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:03 PM
Our 'service' economy now depend upon endless consumption by easily conned consumers. If people ever woke up and realized that they did not need all the stuff that corporations try to sell us our economy (and jobs) would fall even further, as 70% of our economy depends on consumers buying things. Service jobs have proven to be very difficult for unions to organize, hence, where do unions get new members?
In response to:

The Fall of the House of Labor

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 11:53 AM
Anyone who has the ignorance to call the great Pat Buchanan a 'moron' is truly an idiot. How many best-selling books have you published, magnetar?
In response to:

The Unlikelihood of President Hillary

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 09, 2012 11:52 AM
PLEASE, can't we stop all this presidential nonsense until at least AFTER the 2014 midterms? The media remains too interested in the horserace rather than what is important NOW. Those political junkies should be more concerned about fixing our terribly flawed process. Why do Iowa and New Hampshire pretty much get to pick our nominees very 4 years?
In response to:

A Republican Retreat -- or Rout?

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 07, 2012 9:04 PM
What, exactly, is Buchanan's contribution to our current mess, xfranman? Pat has been railing against what has been going on in this country most of his adult life - but those in power do not listen. Pat has not been part of the gov't since Reagan was president. He has been a sworn enemy of both Bushes (ran against GHWB for the repub nomination in '92). He has been against ALL of our wars dating back to the '91 Gulf War. Again, how has Pat contributed to our current mess??? BTW, I agree completely with your second sentence on W.
In response to:

A Republican Retreat -- or Rout?

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 07, 2012 12:33 PM
Totally agree with your argument, gringo. But republicans need to stop blaming all of our current immigration problems on the despised youngest Kennedy brother. That law was passed in 1965. Under 8 years of Reagan and, especially, under the first 6 years of GWB (where he had house majorities), nothing was done to change things. The republicans have no one to blame but themselves.
In response to:

A Republican Retreat -- or Rout?

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 07, 2012 11:26 AM
Perhaps the biggest reason why I am a big Buchanan fan (though I don't always agree) is because of his principled stand against the neocons and our seemingly endless wars of choice. Therefore, one of the good things that could come out of sequestration would be that mlitary (as opposed to defense) spending would have to take a serious haircut. Unforuately, neither of our two war parties would allow this to last for long.
In response to:

A Republican Retreat -- or Rout?

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 07, 2012 11:01 AM
I've been an avid reader and follower of Buchanan even before he first ran for the republican nomination against GHWB in '92. I know that Pat understands power politics better than almost anyone. Therefore, I am surprised that he continues to say that Obama is refusing to negotiate with the defeated opposition. Obama is currently at the height of his power. All presidents take advantage of this when they are in his position. It would be folly for him to capitulate on the tax issue when he campaigned on it for the past year.
In response to:

America Nears El Tipping Pointo

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 2:42 PM
I'll concede your point, Vitaly3. For the Dems, it was smart and cunning and designed to ensure a permanent Dem majority. However, the Repubs willingness to go along with it shows how short-sighted they were and are. The Wall Street-type R's want mass immigration to keep US wages down and profits up. This is why I don't believe most Repubs when they say they want less immigration. The best book on this subject is Pat Buchanan's "State of Emergency."
Previous 31 - 40 Next