Bigdogg;772772 wrote:First off thank you very much. Second I know nothing about the NLRB. All I ask is for you to provide some valid research to support what you are saying. Either you can or you can not, it is as simple as that.

WebFire;772885 wrote:Haha. So wait. You spout off and tell him the things he said about NLRB are false, and challenge him to do some research before "spouting" off. Then when I say "Why don't you provide some research too" you question my IQ. Now you come on and say you know nothing about NLRB?

Wow dude.

Writerbuckeye;772831 wrote:All the research you need is the dispute with Boeing right now.

What reason -- other than being the butt boy for organized labor -- could the NLRB possibly have for trying to prevent thousands of good-paying jobs from one area for no other reason than it isn't a union-friendly state?

For that matter: what BUSINESS is it of the NLRB to even get involved in where this plant is to be located, other than acting on behalf of an administration that has done everything it can to try and build up unions and union membership?

Funny how you claim to know nothing about them NOW -- but railed against my supposed ignorance earlier, even though I AT LEAST have had the experience of watching several hearings take place; and saw decisions made that clearly went against the evidence presented at the time (yes this is my professional opinion as a journalist, but I had been covering court and other types of hearings for years).

When you can show me you have at least as much experience interacting with this organization at ANY level, then maybe I'll think your view is anything different than partisanship.

I've given you two clear cut reasons why I believe they are union lackeys...now it's your turn to show me evidence to the contrary (something other than their own propaganda, I hope.)

EDIT: Here's an editorial from a Washington (state) newspaper against the NLRB's actions, saying it jeopardizes future union jobs in its area. It also questions how an organization has the right to tell a company where it can or cannot operate a business. Pretty well written and on point, in my view.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110501/OPINION01/705019963

Writerbuckeye;773032 wrote:Unless you provide anything resembling proof to the contrary -- you've got nothing. I've at least provided some personal observation and experience with the organization in question; and organization you now admit you know nothing about. So on what basis are you questioning my observations? You've already admitted to knowing nothing about the NLRB.

So far as the Boeing situation is concerned, you've also provided nothing resembling any kind of evidence that what I wrote is inaccurate -- again noting that you know nothing about NLRB.

I'd say you've abdicated -- by your own words -- your role in this discussion.

Writerbuckeye;773842 wrote:You keep criticizing what I use to support my view -- all the while providing NOTHING to counter it.

As for who I'm trying to convince: I thought we were having a discussion and a disagreement. At what point did you drop out?

Bigdogg;774195 wrote:The process of what I do when I hear about something I have little to no experience is to find someone who knows a lot about it, do some independent research myself, and draw some conclusions. What I will never do is take anything on a discussion board like this as gospel, especially from someone like you.

WebFire;774204 wrote:But you flat out told him he was wrong.

Bigdogg;771001 wrote:So you admit you have limited knowledge of NLRB. No surprise there. You act like NLRB is a slam dunk against management every time and this is just not so. You seem to generalize your limited experiences and claim it to be fact on just about every topic you post. Why don't you show some valid research and maybe you would be taken more seriously on here.

WebFire;774895 wrote:Here you go. I am done with you.

Bigdogg;776314 wrote:You conveniently left out "every time", which literally means 100% of the time. So you FAIL and you would have to be the biggest moron on here to think I got owned by someone like webfire.

Glory Days;776340 wrote:man, the pro SB5 people are pouncing like union thugs. oh the irony.

tk421;776816 wrote:I'm going to laugh my ass off when the pro union people are shot down at the polls.

tk421;776816 wrote:I'm going to laugh my ass off when the pro union people are shot down at the polls.

tk421;776816 wrote:I'm going to laugh my ass off when the pro union people are shot down at the polls.

WebFire;776988 wrote:I won't be surprised at all when SB5 is shot down by vote. Everyone knows a teacher or fireman, and they are doing a damn good job of telling sob stories about SB5. Too bad those people don't check it out for themselves. Instead they'll vote to save their friends job or paycheck. :rolleyes:

WebFire;776988 wrote: Instead they'll vote to save their friends job or paycheck. :rolleyes:

BRF;777007 wrote:And that's their right to vote that way.

"Laughing your ass off" about thousands of public employees getting pink slips? It's really that funny? You have just done a lot of damage to your side with that statement, but thanks for making your stance so clear. Yes, we shall see in November.