Giving vessels numbers is also off the table. In a game mod I am working on atm, the transport ships are named after rivers. I know there are some sickos out there, but who in their right mindset has something against a river?
A sensible proposition about the Chavez ship is hidden in the reply to Bubblehead, highlighted for anyone who don't want to comb through the boring wall of text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980
Oh he was not oppressed and was not standing up for anyone, he was just a corrupt guy who found his way by forming a union, he duped a group of uneducated people, like how most unions gained power.Not being insulting, just stating the obvious, prob a lot easier to fool a farmer than say a banker etc The Democrats have pulled it off or did, a lot of "working" people still think the Democrats are on their side LOL. I would venture to guess it is much easier to dupe a group or farmers than a lot of other groups.
Comparing George Washington to Cesar Chavez is ridiculous.George Washington did something worthwhile that was not about self advancement, he was a patriot, Chavez was a union thug, nothing more.
|
Contrary to your previous reply, you only called Chavez a thug once here, I see you're making progress.
Now we need only the explanation how a guy who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which lets him stand in line with Reds like John Wayne, Maggie Thatcher and Ron and Nancy, is a radical. Please also regard post #66, the number of the Steve, where he reminded you again to bring some facts to the table.
The repeated calling Chavez a violent thug makes it sound like we are talking about Al Capone. I am aware of connections of certain unions with the mob, but so are some businessmen, so are some politicians. Certainly no lawyers, never heard of a banker working with the mafia.
Power and corruption are siamese twins. (Legal disclaimer: to anybody reading this, who was, is or will be attached to his sibling - no offense to you, never met anyone of you, but I am certain you're cool people - unless your surnames are power and corruption
)
So bring on some sources for corruption. A good start might be this extensive article from the LA Times, about corruption and the buddy-system in the post-Chavez UWF:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...808,full.story
I notice a big disregard for the farming man in today's middle-class, for the job as for the food they grow, which is eaten day by day by them, hastily slung, quickly rinsed down with the help of a crappiato, without even thinking for a blink, where the wrapped, shiny red apple they grabbed at the 7/11 comes from. So I am stricly arguing on an agricultural level here.
Set course to the late 18th century:
Did ole George not only conscript his army out of farming men but did work his soil himself? Not only artisans, merchants and lawyers were taxed without representation and rose to kick out the crown with the help of cooled Ale - and sometimes by more violent means.
Certainly Washington did not only fight for himself, hiss idea, no he also fought for an improvement of the life conditions for the other settlers in North America, well as long as they were male WASPs.
If you want to use class-warfare terms, he fought a rule by the aristrocat class. He also fought for a set of ideas, later written down in the DOI and the US constitution.
So a quick comparision, let's also put in soopa's proposition for giggles:
proof that pseudo-political statistics can show Herr Schickelhuber and Mr Washington being similar: Ccchhheck!
And no, although I had the honor to learn a little of American history from school books during the Reagan era, I don't believe that Washington fought under the red flag, or was a Marxist before Karl was one.
I am pretty sure that the Navy is aware that Washington has a quite undisputed reputation, so they say: "let's give him a cool, big-ass vessel". As Chavez seems to be slightly more conroversial than Washington, they say: "k, we'll give him a little ship, no one will care."
Fast forward 150 years in the nation which voted a farmer and a soldier as their first president:
1944, the US is in the state of war since over 2 years, many young men get enlisted. Many of them farmers, some of them descendants of immigrants.
The years 44 and 45 were probably no easy tour in the US navy, certainly the people who fought there, would have preferred to make love to Mary-Ann in a corn field rather than being under enemy fire. Chavez and his fellow sailors are part of the generation the US calls The Greatest Generation, now nearly gone off the streets. As long as their is no proof of treason or else while in the war, Chavez belongs to this generation.
Maybe there was something that gave this gen this mindset, this strange mix of toughness and humbleness, not easy described by words.: the hope to get home to a country in peace, to fight so that it may so be, to fight to avoid to fight at home someday, that war one day comes upon their little piece of land they own. To fiight to sit in a rocking chair, watching the plants grow, without bullets flying around the head.
So the most fair and reasonable vote would be this: let those people who have been on a ship in WW2 decide. If you want to fight against the name of the ship, visit your local vet organization and find some people who agree with your view. Visit some WW2 Navy veterans, talk to shem, listen to their stories if they want to share them, confort them, if they can't leave the bed. Tell them about the ship and your opinion, ask them about theirs. I am sure you'll some who agree with your view, you'd also find others, you'd say "why not?" and many would just quote Alfred E. : "What, me worry?"
Gather the vets who are against the name, write a petition to the Navy, their words still have weight.
Beware: don't even think about calling your interest group a union, or you will be seen as a corrupt Communist!
I am also curious how many vets will say that WW2 was the best time of their lives, not even touching the aspect that duty in a segregated force may also put one's perception of the service slightly into the negative.
Cut: WW2 is over, goto post-war:
Has living off the land in the US ever been a farmers-pie-walk? Hell no, it has always been a struggle. So has the life of the landless farm workers, who also contribute their share to the wealth they help to grow and harvest.
"If you don't do the job for some coins, I'll hire somewhere else that is cheaper and after this the next guy who's even cheaper?"
That is the mentality that led to those millions of illegals in the US. Same as the mentality of the consumer who wants to buy cheaper and cheaper,
led to a drain of workplaces in the industrial sector and to the giant trade deficit with nations who build cheap plastic crap.
Do you want to buy your apples from China, drained in chemicals because of unregulated poison levels? Keep on paying the guys on the farm less and less!
So there were people sick of getting the short end of the stick in agriculture, not even getting any protection for from pesticides.
So what is the weapon of the landless to improve their life conditions?? The machete to chop down the evil, fascist suppressor, or whatever reason people need in South Africa?
Set the hope into the free market, wander to the next employer, who offers the same cheap deal?
Or education? Learning another trade ain't easy without some cash to start, even without enough cash to substain a worthy life. Book education was not easy to get without dough, unlike today where imbeciles like me can copy and paste some random wiki facts together from dubious sources and claim to know crap.
So some people chose to organize, as always used in the history of mankind. Power by many. Good for hunting mamooths, good for bargaining with the employers, who, and we shall have no doubt about it, have also always been organized themselves.
Now Topedos los auf das Schlachtschiff Reagan:
Still staying on a stricly agricultural level, only short mentioning Ronnies help to the empire of evil by delivering food.
I think Reagan did a lot to disrespect the fate of the guys who work their own soil, basically his stance was: kiss my wrinkled actor's ass!
What was the life of the US farmers in the 80s like? The pressure to conglomerate - get big or get down. Why is such a big part of Americas food industry in the hands a few big companies today? Political priorities.
Reaganomics: no help, no more subsides, not even credits. The choice for the farmer was either to try to grow or sell to the banks, or to some big corps.
Even those Commie bastard representavtives from the socialist midwest protested back then about Reagan's agricultural politics, 2 random articles from '85:
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-..._1_aid-farmers,
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...ograms-farmers
I find it also outrageous that the industry was allowed a big real-time, biology experiment with genetically modified crops. The de facto non-existant regulation of GM crops was brought to you under Ronnie in '86, without asking the people who have to eat the food grown in american soil, day by day.
As any other pollution, it knows no boundaries of a field. What was in for the farmer? I don't know. What was in for the food mob: The perfect cycle: Make any farmer dependent from your seed. And of course the crops are only resistant to pesticides from your own company. Make him not do, what any farmer has done since thousands of years after harvesting: keep some seeds for the next sowing. Even patenting the seeds, take the farmer's soveregnity about his own cultivations.
And this is also one of the tragedies in a country, which soil is rich enough, not only to feed people in the US but many more.
with agricultural, not agorophobic greetings,
Penguin,
proud grandson of a farmer
PS: call those thoughts whatever you want, commiesocialistpinko whatever, but please not progressive, there's nothing original in this pamphlet here, all thoughts have already been thought by people living a whole lot more yesterday - maybe I'm reprogressive, lol