Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

A dependent nature

September 23, 2013

Some folks have what may be defined as a dependent nature....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(55)

DavidBross

Sep-26-13 2:16 PM

It seems to me that Phil's model of people working independently to improve themselves would work well in a society that is run on the Apprentice, Journeyman, Master Craftsman model. Our current model is based on large production facilities with large numbers of employees.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Sep-25-13 4:54 AM

While I do not agree with Chuck's letters and find his responses to Phil rather childish, I never seen anything offensive in them and the SG should not have contacted him about it. If they disagreed with his letters they could have just not printed them.

I also suspect if there was a complaint, it wasn't from anyone who posts here on the forum.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Calico

Sep-24-13 10:07 PM

"On August 5, 1981, Reagan fired the remaining striking workers and banned them from Federal service for life (this was rescinded by Clinton during his term)."

CLINTON rescinded the law-breakers ban on working for the federal government. Just another example of how breaking the law and getting away with it means nothing to liberals. Reminds one of illegal aliens and amnesty!!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Calico

Sep-24-13 10:03 PM

Yea, but you forgot to get Clinton in there somehow. I guess that Ole Ronnie firing the air traffic controllers helped out workers rights. SCOTT36

The last union to test the law was the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization on August 3, 1981. PATCO, then certified as a government union, violated the law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) when it led its members on a nationwide strike. President Reagan, invoking elements of the Taft-Hartley Act, ordered the members back to work within 48 hours or be terminated. Only 1,300 of 13,000 actually returned, believing that Reagan wouldn't terminate them.

They were wrong.

On August 5, 1981, Reagan fired the remaining striking workers and banned them from Federal service for life (this was rescinded by Clinton during his term).

The ATC's MADE A CHOICE!

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-24-13 9:29 PM

Bobbie, anytime you'd like to meet and chat over coffee just let me know. Coffee's on me.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-24-13 8:19 PM

CMReeder, For whatever it is worth, I am in FULL SUPPORT of you in this matter. I am also very sorry,(and quite ticked off) at this occurrence. What is it with some of these people? Most people mature out of the "I'm gonna tell" stage of their life in grade school.(if not before) It is quite apparent that whomever made this move was light years behind you in ability to comprehend/respond to your writings. So failing to have the testicular fortitude of a common garden slug, & face you like a man, they resort to this. Pitiful, childish & sad do not come close to describing it in full content. At least you know how certain folks on here feel in regards to the 1st. Amendment. Keep doing what you are doing--Voicing your opinion,& standing behind it. Have a Safe,& Pleasant evening-Scott

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BornHere

Sep-24-13 5:57 PM

I am sorry Mr. Reeder that it has come to this obviously the Editor has not read some of the comments you receive on your letters I find this very childish, I say go and meet with him for coffee and settle this.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-24-13 5:55 PM

Chuck that is really kind of unbelievable and sad that someone would actually take the time to call or write the editor and complain about something so stupid. I doubt VERY much that it was Phil, but I have my suspicions on who it might have been. But you know no one will have the guts to come forward and stand by their actions. You and I don't agree too often but you have every right to write as many letters as you wish. Unbelievable!

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-24-13 4:55 PM

I think it's ridiculous that it has come to this. I also will no longer comment on Phil's letters until this is resolved.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-24-13 4:52 PM

I would love to sit in and join you for the 'coffee summit'.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Sep-24-13 11:55 AM

Well congratulations Phil supporters and possibly Phil himself. I got a call from the Editor about your complaints about me and my 'focused' letters about Phil's letters. I have stopped postiong comments on phil's letters because you complained. i don't respond directly to phil in comments on any other letter because you complained. However I will not stop writing a response to Phil's letter nor is the Editor going to stop printing them. I am not picking on Phil nor do I have a vendetta against him. I don't agree with him. He doesn't agree with me! Have a nice day!

The Editor suggested that Phil and I meet for coffee and get to know each other. Maybe that would help. Doubt it!

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Sep-24-13 9:11 AM

"I write letters like this hoping to start a particular discussion. I was hoping for an exchange of thoughts about facets of human nature, not unions."

Phil, you've lived around here long enough to know the mere mention of "union" brings out the anti-union posters.

If you would have left unions out of your letter, the discussion might have gone a different way. A lot of times, though, I think you know exactly what you're doing and what buttons you are pushing.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Sep-24-13 5:45 AM

"I write letters like this hoping to start a particular discussion. I was hoping for an exchange of thoughts about facets of human nature, not unions." Phil then you need to write a LTE about human nature, not about dependency issues or unions, socialized medicine or free-markets, they will always be politicized. Human nature is like water or electricity, it will always take the path of least resistance.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-24-13 2:56 AM

Thank you Jerry, It was not too difficult to find names of well known store chains using products made there. It appears that the current $38 a month they are currently receiving will not even meet their basic needs. But we can all rest assured that corporations here in America would be much better if left to their own devices.-Very Sad for these people.-Scott

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Sep-23-13 9:50 PM

Whether we want to admit it or not, we are all dependent upon God.

"But among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God."--1 Corinthians 11:11-12

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." --Luke 12:48b

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-23-13 9:35 PM

Bangladesh

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-23-13 9:33 PM

Jerry, I hesitate to ask, but what country was this. I would also love to know what brand of garments are being produced.-Thanks, Scott

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-23-13 8:47 PM

While we sit in our shining city on the hill pondering the dependent nature people, elsewhere in the world police fired rubber bullets at garment workers who, for a second day, protested for better wages.

They demand a minimum monthly wage of $100.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-23-13 7:47 PM

This is also in part because of the "leadership" we have today! and Obamacare.-leaningright

Yea, but you forgot to get Clinton in there somehow. I guess that Ole Ronnie firing the air traffic controllers helped out workers rights.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-23-13 7:41 PM

Can't have a pro-union consensus in a conservative dominated forum, better change the subject quick.-JerryfromRI

Well said(unfortunately) I noticed that(so far) nobody wanted to take a crack at my 4:01 post. Yeah well Have a nice evening-Scott

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Sep-23-13 7:26 PM

Capricorn1-"Mike why would you think I would want to screw the military? Think about it. Do you actually think the military should have a union? That's really absurd. I spent a lot of years in the military and I knew exactly what I was getting into and the sacrifices I would have to make. And I knew I wasn't going to get rich doing it."

Well, good for you. But I still think our military personnel deserve better pay AND benefits for their service and sacrifice. I would think someone who has been there would feel the same.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Sep-23-13 7:22 PM

Capricorn1-"What do you feel about a civil service employee being allowed to pad their overtime when they get close to retirement so that they receive a much higher retirement for the rest of their life at the expense of the tax payer? And others that work in that union give him the overtime so he is afforded the opportunity to do this? Do you feel that is fair to the tax payer?"

The employees contribution percentage is taken off of gross wages, including wages, so overtime wages are including as earnings under the State Pension laws. Quit taking the pension percentage from overtime money and eliminate overtime from the pension equation. Simple fix. But you also realize that the final salary (including overtime) is used in calculating how much a retiree pays towards their health care. You should know this, but over the last decade the pension fund income has been comprised of 69% interest income, 21% employee contribution and 10% employer (taxpayer) contributions.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-23-13 6:50 PM

Can't have a pro-union consensus in a conservative dominated forum, better change the subject quick.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Sep-23-13 6:01 PM

I write letters like this hoping to start a particular discussion. I was hoping for an exchange of thoughts about facets of human nature, not unions.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-23-13 4:52 PM

Before there were public employee unions, people chose those jobs because they wanted to work in the type of service offered and they got job security and other benefits not found in the private sector. -Phil

Exactly! Mike why would you think I would want to screw the military? Think about it. Do you actually think the military should have a union? That's really absurd. I spent a lot of years in the military and I knew exactly what I was getting into and the sacrifices I would have to make. And I knew I wasn't going to get rich doing it. Civil service jobs are no different. What do you feel about a civil service employee being allowed to pad their overtime when they get close to retirement so that they receive a much higher retirement for the rest of their life at the expense of the tax payer? And others that work in that union give him the overtime so he is afforded the opportunity to do this? Do you feel that is fair to the tax payer? Happens all the time. Union benefit.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 55 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web