Independent voters hate government and politicians, but they hate the ones who threaten their families and their wallets the most.
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. — George Washington, Farewell Address
With a couple of big elections coming up in the near future, everyone is wondering whether the shortcomings of the Bush administration are enough to drive voters away and give the Democrats a chance to regain power. As with every election, victory largely comes down to who can win over the independent voters who make up about a third of the electorate. As elected officials from both parties underperform and disappoint the voters the number of independents has been growing as disaffected members drift away from the parties. These alienated voters are the key to winning more and more elections.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Nancy
I am caught in a terrible quandry, because I have come to loathe the Dems for their supine spinelessness & fecklessness, but at the same time I utterly despise the GOP with their incessant lies, arrogance, & innate corruption. I refuse to even consider voting for a Republican; but I won't consider voting for anyone in the current Dem Party, either: if they haven't been able to make hash out of the GOP by now, they sure as hell won't be able to run a government. Jesus! Does this mean my only choice is Lyndon LaRouche?! By law we should be able to have a "None of the Above" write-in & if it wins, hold another election barring those who just ran, but open to anyone else. Or something. Anything.
27 - Andy Marsh
gonzo - you can't answer a question with a question...I asked if it says I have to register for my right to bear arms...you turned it around on me...not fair...but I guess well regulated could equate to registration.
But, like I said, you don't really belive that requiring registration will get all the weapons registered, do you?
If a criminal is being charged with murder...do you really think he gives a fuck if you charge him with murder with an unregistered handgun? Maybe we should change the punishment to just plain death penalty for murder with a registered handgun and slow painful death penalty for murder with an unregistered handgun?
28 - gonzo marx
oh Andy..check again, there's no Question mark in my entire comment
{8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but you do seem to get the point that i am solid on the right to bear arms, but also want the gun advocates to remember the "well regulated militia" part that they ALWAYS leave out when quoting the second amendment
fair enough...
so...did ya watch the Judas Gospel special last night? (now that IS a question)
Excelsior!
29 - Matthew T. Sussman
You know what I find amazing about you Nancy: you seem to have an immovable, irrefutable hatred for all politicans, company CEOs, basically anyone who wears a tie to work and can vacation on a lake named after an Indian chief. I mean, it seems like it goes beyond a vendetta or an annoyance and goes straight to the core of these people.
Crimony, I don't even have that kind of hatred for the dude who stole my high school girlfriend.
30 - Andy Marsh
I missed the one last night. I did see one last week...abc I believe...gotta get that DVR...damn! Looking forward to the book.
I still like my idea about just plain death penalty and slow painful death penalty...
Sorry about the girl Matt...but she really wasn't all that!!! j/k....
31 - Arch Conservative
You noticed that about Nancy too huh Matthew?
I thought I was the only one.
32 - Andy Marsh
Personally, I thought she hated everything...but Matthew seems to have boiled it down to a short list...good job Matthew!
33 - Nancy
No, not everyone; just those who ought to - and DO - know better because they ARE the creme de la creme, well educated, and from people who have all the advantages and therefore no excuse for bad, greedy, corrupt, or other degenerate behavior. What's that old bible verse about 'to whom more is given, more is expected'.
34 - gonzo marx
bah...Nancy tend to rant about mch the same things i do....
they are called Ethics
when folks violate them, they deserve to get knocked around....i don't give a fuck who they are
when folks at least TRY and adhere to them, and/or admit their mistakes and try to correct them...then they get some tolerance , praise, understanding and a little help from most folks
now, Nancy and i differ in many way on this...both in observation and expectation as well as focus and style of diatribes...but it still tends to come down to Ethics
if you can't see the difference, then i can't really help you
nuff said?
Excelsior!
35 - Matthew T. Sussman
Well, that's true -- there's a lot of rich lazy people, and one day I hope to be one of them. But what I was getting at is: is that really any justification (or even a good reason) for what seems to be a deep-seated loathsome attitude toward all men in suits?
36 - gonzo marx
Suss...might i suggest that you are overgeneraizing to some extent
yer perogative, of course
just my one sixth billionths of the world's Opinion
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
37 - Matthew T. Sussman
Well, that was more an observation and a question for Nancy and her sentiments on the $100,000+/year population.
You, Gonzo, we all know doesn't belong to a "gang" and thinks independently, outside the box, values morals, equality, liberty, and the Bill of Rights.
In other words, you think differently, just like everybody else.
{8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's some mighty nice ASCII art.
38 - Nancy
Men AND women in suits ... or whatever they wear while abusing the advantages they were given. Both genders, both parties. Gonzo has it right: it's ethics (or lack thereof). For example: I have no beef w/Bill Gates or Bill Johnson (founder of BET). They earned their money fairly, worked hard, and kept their ethics. They treat other people (even "the little people") decently & w/respect. They aren't out to steal the fillings out of people's teeth to line their own pockets or aggrandize their position. They got where they are without lying, cheating, stealing, selling out their fellows, or adopting fake good-ol'-Texas-boy accents. Contrast them with such opposite exemplars as Ken Lay, Karl Rove, Bernie Ebbers, Jack Abramoff, Rich Cunningham, Tom DeLay, or the executives of the energy cartels that got together to rip off the entire state of California.
It seems to me the question is not why am I ranting, but why are YOU not ranting?! What's wrong with YOU? Are you saying you approve of the maaners, morals, & utter lack of ethics of these assholes? You want to emulate them? You think these should be the people who set the standards & examples of how things should be done? If so, the one who's sick, who has a real problem, is not me, but YOU.
39 - Arch Conservative
Nancy there are some who might object to your characterization of Bill Gates as such an ethical guy.
In fact some might say that Microsoft uses very unethical tactics.
40 - Matthew T. Sussman
Oh dear me. This got fun quick.
The truth is, Nancy, that I love corruption and scandal. I love stealing. I love taking advantage of people. I'm a kleptomaniaCEO wannabee. Oh, and for dinner I eat babies.
Stay tuned for my dead serious answer later.
Ex¢e£$ior!
41 - Jet in Columbus
MATTHEW!!! I didn't know you were a republican????
42 - Dave Nalle
the alternative is to require folks to register their guns in the same manner that they register their cars...
Which a lot of people see as nothing but a way to keep track of guns so that the government can seize them when it's ready to crack down and institute real oppression.
and then enforce the fucking Law...
So now you're for making new draconian laws and enforcing them rigidly as well. You're coming off more and more totalitarian with this love of merciless enforcement of bad law.
this way, if a cop shakes down a bad guy and finds an unregistered gun....he gets popped for the mandatory minimum..
Even better, you're also for mandatory minimum sentencing. So the 'bad guy' happens to be a kid who's afraid of getting beaten up by gang-bangers on his way to school - say he's a small 16 year old - and he borrows his grandfathers gun that's not registered to him. The school cops shake him down and get the gun and it's off to sing sing for what, 5 years minimum? Great plan.
Nice to see that the mask is off on your authoritarian tendancies.
How about we CHANGE the fucking law?
Dave
43 - gonzo marx
oh nice try at twisting my poorly expressed thoughts...
so...i'll attempt to clarify...
#42 sez...
*Which a lot of people see as nothing but a way to keep track of guns so that the government can seize them when it's ready to crack down and institute real oppression.*
see the Second Amendment and the "well regulated militia part again...
and then
*So now you're for making new draconian laws and enforcing them rigidly as well. You're coming off more and more totalitarian with this love of merciless enforcement of bad law.*
actually...i am advocating the Rule of Law...even if registration is NOT required, it is still a crime for a felon to possess a firearm...as well as many other laws on state books ...what i ask is that the Law be enforced and not ignored...
far from draconian or totalitarian...but thanks for attempting to paint me as such...
and then
*Even better, you're also for mandatory minimum sentencing.*
actually...no..i dislike the entire GOP written mandatory minimums..i was merely expressing the fact of their existance, and showing how a registration law/ordinance can aid law enforcement from removing some of the bad guys from the steets...a much more probable scenario than your hypothetical
nice to see you removing your "mask" of even a semblance of rationality...
as fo changing the Law...that IS what i am proposing...that ANY american citizen over the age of 18 be able to purchase and register a firearm
nuff said?
Excelsior!
44 - Nancy
Then obviously there's a lot I missed concerning Bill Gates. If he has been unethical, mean-spirited, and greedy, then he joins the Damned; however, I understand his lack of ethics (or Microsoft's) has been oriented more towards trying to impose his product on everyone else's lines. I don't know...some toe-to-toe against competitors is legit. My fine-tuned criteria are that he hasn't been unethical, mean-spirited, greedy, or nasty to the individuals who work for him or to persons in general. For example, having all the money in the world, he hasn't (to my knowledge) tried to screw over his own employees just to garner the additional dime for his own bank account by cutting their retirement, like the airlines honchos - and then added insult to injury by awarding himself a big, fat, obscenely generous bonus for screwing them.
I don't object to people making a FAIR salary, including bonuses, etc., and especially when thru their own inventiveness or entrepreneurial skills they make it big. It's when they get greedy & start nailing those under them or without power to object (like small stockholders or the general public) thru greed or sheer meanness, just because they can get away with it, that I object. It's when they already have millions & billions, and yet they go out of their way to screw others out of their last dime, or their lifes' savings, to add to their own already-unjustifiable wealth that I object. There's a difference between "honest" wealth, and just plain greed & meanness of spirit & intent. If you can't understand what I'm getting at, then there's no way I can explain.
I hate corruption, because it invaribly means innocent people are the ones taking it on the chops while the greedy & unprincipled walk away relatively if not generally entirely unscathed. Kind of like drunk drivers: y'ever notice it's always the drunk who walks away unharmed, while the innocent schmoes in the other car get creamed unto death or mass mutilation?
Maybe I come from a too-civil upbringing of right & wrong, but I was brought up to believe that you took what was your rightful share, let others have theirs, and under NO circumstances did you try to hog it all while others starve, and certainly not thru tactics that are immoral, unethical or illegal - even if you CAN get away with it. As I said earlier, I believe the more you're given to work with, the more is expected of you - and the more you'd better perform to standard at minimum, and if you value your soul & honor,with some extra. For those who have more than their fair share and insist on conniving, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. in order to get everyone else's as well there is no excuse, no justification, and should be no pardon or toleration.
I now return the soapbox to Gonzo & Co. Thank you for listening.
45 - gonzo marx
nicely put Nancy...
but no need to "return the soapbox"
i've got that nasty taste in my mouth and am Questioning why i bother here again...
we will see...
Excelsior!
46 - Dave Nalle
actually...i am advocating the Rule of Law...even if registration is NOT required, it is still a crime for a felon to possess a firearm...as well as many other laws on state books ...what i ask is that the Law be enforced and not ignored...
The problem is that you're for enforcing the law regardless of whether it's a well written law, violates people more basic rights, or makes no sense at all. The law is a creation of society, and as such it can be changed. One of the signs that it needs to be changed is when in practice it is not enforced or regularly violated with no consequences. In most cases the response to that should not be to enforce the bad law, but to CHANGE it.
If we started enforcing all the laws on the books, it would be illegal for women to go braless in Pennsylvania, unmarried people - regardless of gender - would not be allowed to live in the same house in Texas, and the president wouldn't be able to have a computer system sort through phonecalls to identify which ones came from the phones of suspected terrorists.
There are lots of bad laws which don't get enforced. Let's change them rather than slavishly enforcing them.
Dave
47 - gonzo marx
last response to this particular individual...
#46...
i can agree that there are bad laws that are enforced, and there are good laws that are not enforced
if we live under the Rule of Law...then they should all be enforced until ratified or changed...by definition
who decides?
/end
Excelsior!
48 - Nancy
This president holds he's above the law anyway, so what's the diff? But then, he DID once make a slip & say God give him special missions. I wuz right: W is an absolutely, totally, fucking insane maniac.
49 - Matthew T. Sussman
Ooh, there it is again. It's the same kind of thrill as finding Waldo.
"W is an absolutely, totally, fucking insane maniac"
Even his majesty's royal opposition doesn't consider him an insane maniac. In fact a lot of politicans who know him but disagree with him believe he's a very kind individual when he's not creating public policy.
This is the type of statement that galvanizes voters (ooh, look at me, I'm tying this back to the article above the Amazon belt) to vote Republican.
Nobody I've heard of would ever postulate that a Democrat is an absolulte, total, fucking insane maniac. Sure, they smear the same kind of unnecessary feces on their opponents but it never resorts to the rant of the red-eyed, steam-out-of-the-ears rally crier.
You wanna say he made a mistake going to war? OK, probably true, what do I know about war. You want to say his resources are all tied up overseas and leaving little to tend to stuff like education and the environment? OK. All valid points.
But to try and hit a grand slam with the bases empty when all you need is a base knock and call someone beyond what he really is -- well, that's the kind of steadfast ire you and other who represent the "clear thinkers" may need to re-evaluate.
I'll gladly vote for the Democrat who respectfully challenges the current administration.
50 - Matthew T. Sussman
P.S. - here's your weirdo.
51 - Dave Nalle
Nobody I've heard of would ever postulate that a Democrat is an absolulte, total, fucking insane maniac.
You forgot about Cynthia McKinney, Matt.
Dave
52 - Jet in Columbus
Not to mention Arch Conservative?
53 - Matthew T. Sussman
Even she could control her anger if she simply repeated over and over: "goose fraba"
54 - Nancy
Matt, there are plenty on BOTH sides I consider to be maniacs, but they aren't in charge of the country, and haven't the power to unilaterally take this country to war, beggar the economy, and condemn to senseless death thousands of our troops (not to mention others) in order to fulfill their program of self-aggrandizement & macho shitheadedness.
55 - Nancy
As to being 'kind', etc., I suspect even the most amoral of political butchers has had their sweet moments chirping at canaries & puppies as well.
56 - Matthew T. Sussman
See, even extending that perception to both sides of the aisle doesn't help your cause much. Usage of the term "bipartisan" doesn't automatically make an argument OK.
I'm taking a wild guess (not implying, just guessing) that you actually hate politicans. A lot of them. These are people who have no direct impact in your life. Not one. Unless one of them slapped you around as a little girl, pushed you in the mud, and stole your bike, I can't believe you could perceive white dudes in empty suits -- as cold and inept as they may be at their jobs -- to be maniacal, diabolical, heartless, soulless, shitheads.
Like I said before, I don't even hold that kind of description to people who have wronged me in my life before.
That's a problem with this whole politics thing -- I think people just genuinely hate certain candidates. And to think I learned in third grade that hate is a bad thing. Now it's a tool to justify which hole you punch in the voting booth. Amazing.
57 - Dave Nalle
Having known a few politicians, I can assure you that they aren't deserving of the hatred often directed at them by such as Nancy. They're just human beings trying to do the best job they can while being pulled in 20 different directions by advisors, constituents, colleagues and lobbyists, all of whom they need to try to satisfy in some way, with the result that they do a pretty crappy job of pursuing any principle or fighting for a cause, or even maintaining ethical integrity. And the key thing is that even Nancy would likely end up just as mendacious if she ended up in a major public office.
Dave
58 - Nancy
I could never get elected in the first place, since I refuse to sell myself to the highest bidder or compromise my values just to win a popularity contest. IMO, no HONEST person is going to be either happy or successful in politics; you have to be an inherent sleazebag, untroubled by ethical concerns or honesty to be either successful or able to live with yourself. I do personally know someone who is in big-name politics. I've watched this person, who started off being a nice, honest person, gradually start down the slippery slope of compromise, so gradually it wasn't until he was fairly well down it that he even realized what had happened: a whole mess of little things here & there, but they add up to a major selling of the soul & betrayal of standards. The higher the office, the greater the betrayals, OR the more inherent the sleaziness of the incumbent to begin with. You see, the problem is, I DO know firsthand people in politics, both the officeholder & the hordes of staffers & camp followers, not to mention the lobbyists. It's a very nasty environment, peopled by (generally) very nasty characters. "West Wing" is IMO an extremely cleaned-up, benign version of reality. My attitude is not just pulled out of thin air or some hat. What are your credentials in firsthand knowledge of politics or politicians? If I remember correctly, Dave, didn't you run for office once, at least? Were you aware of the dreck involved, or was it a personal & cultural shock? I stuck with my friend until I couldn't stand the compromises & changes any more, and the endless justifications to himself of why he was doing these things before I finally just left; the surrounding cloud of those intent on corruption, deliberate or un-, was just too much to put up with.
59 - JP
Dave:
Which a lot of people see as nothing but a way to keep track of guns so that the government can seize them when it's ready to crack down and institute real oppression.
This is where we part ways, and where I think gun fanatics lose touch with reason. I would simply point out that the 2nd amendment grants the right to "keep and bear arms," not to "keep and bear arms ANONYMOUSLY."
I won't even get into whether the "well-regulated militia" clause since that is contentious and beyond my point--I don't argue people shouldn't be able to purchase guns, but in the interest of making it more difficult for criminals to obtain them, why allow unregulated access?
I'll even grant you that a criminal will get his hands on one regardless. Doesn't it follow that a criminal would purchase a weapon at a gun shop if he KNEW there were no background check and no registration, since he would not have to pay a black-market markup on top of that price?
60 - Bliffle
"...I refuse to sell myself to the highest bidder or compromise my values..."
I'd do it! I'd sell myself to the highest bidder, and/or compromise my values! Either one or both in a twofer! Then I'd hire Daniel Webster, with my ill gotten gains, to go up against Old Scratch himself and save my soul. And I'd win, too. One thing I've learned from my years in business and observing politics and religion: reneging is more powerful than a contract!
Unfortunatley, there are already too many offers of souls and values. They've both been discounted down badly with the flood of applications. It's hardly worth the effort. So I, like most of us, am doomed to the hard work of finding some other path to fame and riches. *Gloom*. Another get-rich-quick scheme founders on the rocks. It all sounded so simple, too.
61 - Nancy
Yeah, Blif, but you're obviously a lot smarter than I am or I'd be less addicted to my bad "good" habits!
62 - Bliffle
You should abandon your attempts at "good" habits forthwith. Modern man is so inured to viewing everything as entertainment and acting that everyone around you already thinks that it is mere pretense and posturing, and the thought is so pervasive that you will come to think the same in time. Listen to the Voice Of Experience.
63 - Dave Nalle
This is where we part ways, and where I think gun fanatics lose touch with reason. I would simply point out that the 2nd amendment grants the right to "keep and bear arms," not to "keep and bear arms ANONYMOUSLY."
The right to keep and bear arms is meaningless if it can be taken away easily by the government. Not knowing where the guns are and who has what guns is one of the few protections that right has. As the law exists now the government theoretically has no record on the federal level of gun ownership. The paperwork you do now is only for a background check. And that check is all you need to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane - registration wouldn't be any more effective. The only purpose registration serves is to make it easier to take the guns away.
I won't even get into whether the "well-regulated militia" clause since that is contentious and beyond my point--I don't argue people shouldn't be able to purchase guns, but in the interest of making it more difficult for criminals to obtain them, why allow unregulated access?
Because it's a right. Do we regulate peoples right to buy land or food or breathe air? As for the well regulated militia, indeed best to not bring that up, since that clause is violated by things like the assault weapons ban.
I'll even grant you that a criminal will get his hands on one regardless. Doesn't it follow that a criminal would purchase a weapon at a gun shop if he KNEW there were no background check and no registration, since he would not have to pay a black-market markup on top of that price
Well sure. But the point is that even with a background check and just as much with registration the criminals can get guns if they want them.
Dave
64 - RedTard
"Do we regulate peoples right to buy land or food or breathe air?"
You can buy whatever land you want, you just better hope you're in good with the local bureacrat if you ever want to be able to build on it or do anything with it. Also, it can be taken away very easily if you don't pay the required government rent (taxes) or if a richer person wants it.
As for food, there's a whole fucked up, bloated government agency to regulate that and eventual taxation of 'bad' food is on the horizon. (note to liberal professors: indoctrinate more on this!) Air is still in the clear, for now.
65 - Dave Nalle
You can buy whatever land you want, you just better hope you're in good with the local bureacrat if you ever want to be able to build on it or do anything with it. Also, it can be taken away very easily if you don't pay the required government rent (taxes) or if a richer person wants it.
Sadly true, and all things which should be at the top of the 'fix it' list for our government.
As for food, there's a whole fucked up, bloated government agency to regulate that and eventual taxation of 'bad' food is on the horizon. (note to liberal professors: indoctrinate more on this!) Air is still in the clear, for now.
Ah, but they just regulate the quality of food. I don't mind if the government makes sure my guns can shoot straight.
Dave
66 - Bliffle
To return to the original topic for a moment: "Why the GOP Will Continue to Win the Independent Vote and Thus Win Elections". (Sorry about that)
I think independents will vote GOP for a while, until they see their interests forfeited. Independents are largely middleclass middlemanagement folk who perceive their interests as allied with Top Management (I believe they are deluded in this perception, and that vanity causes them to eagerly think themselves to be on the same team as Top Management, which they are not. They are easily expendable.)
But when the Top Guys exhaust the possibilities of ransacking the forfeited promises made to GM assembly line workers, etc., they will turn their attention to middlemanagers and other hitherto protected white-collar workers. This will be the next step in the progression of business piracy, against which there are only a few inhibitions.
67 - Dave Nalle
Wow, the middle class you talk about bears no resemblance to today's middle class, which is way more diverse than the corporate white collar paper-pusher model you suggest. That's the middle class of the 1960s. Today we're talking about unionized workers, no-collar high tech workers, engineers, entrepreneurs and contract workers. Those groups have expanded enormously while your traditional white collar workers have been scaled back. Most businesses have already done the middle-management reduction you suggest is coming, because it's been clear for years that multiple levels of management make businesses inefficient.
Dave
68 - JP
Dave, I see where you're coming from, though I don't perceive a desire to canvass the country and take away all the guns. A small minority perhaps, but I'm thinking more about a sensible solution.
I don't think registration merely provides, as you suggest, a database of gun owners for confiscation purposes--in my opinion, if a firearm is sold and registered to Joe Gunowner, Joe's far less likely to give or sell it to his buddy who he knows has a drug habit. He'll be more careful with the weapon because he knows his name is linked to it somewhere. Of course it doesn't eliminate criminals getting weapons, but it does help the problem and it does not prevent anyone from legally owning a firearm for protection.
Bliffle, I'm inclined to give your point some credibility, as I seem to remember a survey in the last few years that showed 30% or more of Americans think they're in the top 5% of wage-earners. However as Dave pointed out, the middle class is much more varied than you illustrate.
69 - Dave Nalle
JP, with registration joe citizen would be unlikely to sell his gun to his friend at all, regardless of that friend's personal character. It makes the gun effectively the property of the state, loaned to the citizen at their discretion and taken away the moment a truly abusive government gets into power. I'm just uneasy with installing the mechanisms which make tyrrany easier to implement when we have no assurance our government will always be our friend.
Dave
70 - JP
See but Dave, that's the point.. making sure the gun doesn't end up in the wrong hands. If used for common purposes, i.e. hunting, no harm no foul. But in case it's not, it's easier to find out who's responsible.
71 - Dave Nalle
Regardless of whether the gun originally belonged to someone else, it's still the person who used it in the crime who's responsible.
I think our efforts would be far better served by increasing the felony level and sentencing standards for any crime committed with a gun.
Dave
72 - Dawn
I actually think Nancy rocks.
Dave, you did a very good analysis, but the broad spectrum of independents can't be generalized as neatly as you have done.
I am an independent - in that I don't vote on party lines. I tend to vote for the best candidate for the job, that person may be from any party.
What I would like is a candidate who's hard on violent criminals, enforces the death penalty and decriminalizes pot, but lays a vicious smackdown on those who distribute meth, crack, and peddle prescription drugs. I want a candidate who supports a women's right to choose, but crushes the very soul of terrorists and upholds the foundations of democracy and human rights around the world. Not just in countries that have resources we like.
I want a candidate who doesn't mind blowing up the bad guy, but helps mothers and children in war torn countries.
I want a candidate who could care less about the gender of the person you wish to marry and share your life with.
I want a candidate who could care less about Janet's nipple, but goes psycho on sexual predators and gets rid of spam and cybercrimes.
What I want doesn't exist, never will and that just sucks.
What I want is me for president, but I have way too much common sense for this country to understand.
73 - Maurice
Interesting points, Dawn. Although I'm not sure about your comment about Nancy. Have you heard of David Duke?
Dave, your analogy to the playground was spot on and brilliant.
74 - Bliffle
Dave: "Today we're talking about unionized workers, no-collar high tech workers, engineers, entrepreneurs and contract workers."
Doesn't matter what the details of their work mode, they all occupy the same relative powerlessness position but mistakenly believe themselves allied with the powerful. I've been all the things you mention and in each came to realize that my superiors simply used misdirection to attempt to deceive me. For example, when first employed by HAL (let us call it) as a young EE, I already had several years entrepeneurship as a contract layout draftsman and ME, so when they attempted to dazzle me with the pension program, etc., I asked for a copy of the signed contract, which they refused (in feigned shock) so I knew they were insincere and I wasn't surprised a few years later when they reneged (unlike some of my cohorts who wept openly at the betrayal).
Even in my current operations as a smalltime capitalist/entrepeneur I know I am susceptible to being crushed by Big Boys (I know many of them and even have socialized extensively with them, and I know they view some of my highly profitable small nut ventures with open envy, and they'd shoot me down if they could get a bead on me, but I'm too elusive: my self-confidence does not trick me into foolish moves).
The big fish eat the little fish. And all your whining and all your cries for justice won't change a bit of it. Be prepared. And don't buy any wooden nickels.
75 - Maurice
Blif
you are a EE/ME that did layout design? Semiconductors or PC boards?
BTW I have been in the industry for 24 years and have never been offered any kind of pension. I thought pensions were a thing of the past and that we were all saving for our own retirements now....