Re: Say NO NO NO to Wal-Mart!!!

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:00:39 GMT, Victor Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>You don't make sense.  You ask why union members, who knew nothing
>of the traitorous activities of Hughes and Loral management, don't
>"resign" their jobs in protest.

It was made public in 1998.  Not one word of protest from the
union(s).  Perhaps it's because our news is somewhat
censored...perhaps you can enlighten us with records of their
protests.

>You want all the union members to resign in protest of the traitorous
>activities of Hughes and Loral management, so as to show their
>patriotism.

Management does that all the time - how many times have you heard
about this CEO or that CIO or that CFO resign because of differences
they had with other elements of the corporate leadership?

I work in a non-union shop.  If I found that my work was being used
directly by those I was working for to subvert the US, I WOULD resign.
I'm not talking about my product merely reaching the "wrong hands,"
but if those I was working for provided them to Red China (or Libya
for that matter) while disregarding any laws proscribing such
transfers.

>So the same management traitors can then hire non-union workers, and
>go about their traitorous activity with Red China?

So be patriotic and continue working there to allow management to go
about their traitorous activity with Red China.

>What even a moderately sensible American would want is for the union
>members to strike on the issue of traitorous management, demanding
>that all traitors be removed as a condition of returning to work,
>stopping the production of the components so that management traitors
>can not sell missile components to Red China.

They didn't even do that.

>(This is all absurdly assuming there is no FBI, FTC, etc. doing the
>job of arresting and prosecuting the management traitors, which I
>guess you haven't even considered, being so blinded by your desire to
>blame innocent union members for management acts of treason.)

It's called taking a stand.

>But that strike against treason isn't what you want.  Because a union
>striking against management which is committing acts of treason
>against the United States of America to the benefit of Red China is a
>worse thing for you than the treason itself.

Not taking even the slightest hint of a stand against treason.

>IOW, you never cared about the *treason*, but only *use* that to
>castigate innocent union employees for not resigning over management
>treason.

>For reasons of usenet etiquette, I'm gonna hold off saying in explicit
>terms what you have revealed yourself to be.
>But if you continue to pester me with your cracker barrel nonsense,
>all bets are off.
>
>--Vic