# U.S Supreme Court is just plain wrong.......



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

First they rule that corporations are citizens.  

Now they rule that companies can keep you at work with no pay as long as what they have you doing is not considered an essential part of the workers' jobs..........

Your boss now has permission to dream up tasks that would appear to a court to be nonessential to your job, and not pay you for them.

There was not one descenting vote.............

*Shame on the U.S. Supreme Court​*
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/restless-project-employer-force-stay-153040227.html


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

The government has no business interfering with this sort of thing. If a company wants to do something like this, so be it. The ultimate decision is up to the individual as to whether or not they are willing to abide by it. They can quit.

Many states are "employment at will" (such as mine). This means that a company can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. It also means that you can quit for any reason or no reason at all.

If enough people don't like a company's policy, the company will have a more difficult time hiring and keeping valuable employees and even attracting customers. Get the government off the backs of business and let it do what it does best; be the engine of capitalism and wealth.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Hah. I somehow am getting the feeling that neither of you folks favor labor unions. SouthernBoy, your last sentence repeats the plutocrats' Golden Ideal.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> Hah. I somehow am getting the feeling that neither of you folks favor labor unions. SouthernBoy, your last sentence repeats the plutocrats' Golden Ideal.


There is no greater economic system than capitalism. And I am unabashedly a complete supporter of this economic engine. As for labor unions, I see a goodly number of them doing nothing more than holding back the power of the free market. Granted, there was a time when their use was needed. But they were rife with corruption, graft, and they have done more damage to our manufacturing side than most know or appreciate.

Henry Ford did the unthinkable in 1925 by offering $5 a day for eight hours of work. The result was an explosion of production and happy employees.

Now mind you, I hold nothing but disdain for employers who mistreat their employees. I have long believed that the most important asset a company has is its employees. If you treat them properly and pay them well, you will reap the benefits. If not, you will have disgruntled personnel, high turnover rates, and dissatisfied customers because of apathetic employee contact. I have never wavered in this belief.

"plutocrats' Golden Ideal". Well we don't quite have that here in this country since most of the private sector is made up of small businesses. As such, they are far more answerable and sensitive to employee concerns than larger corporations might be. What does concern me is government getting into bed with unions and big business. Excepting war production (think WWII), this usually tends not to be in our best interests.

So as for "plutocrats' Golden Ideal", somehow I get the feeling that you are union-oriented and perhaps more in line with economic policies more closely aligned with European nations.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

It is somehow refreshing on this chilly but sunny December morning to read right-wingers moaning about SCOTUS. 

Does my heart good to see you on my side of the aisle for a change.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

The one thing that labor unions can justify is organizing the work force to engage in collective bargaining. This is completely reasonable, as long as everything remains voluntary. What they cannot justify is the coercion they use to keep members united, and preventing any who disagree from having a voice. Walking off of a job, en masse, is a fair tactic...as long as each person understands they stand a chance of losing their job, and is willing to take the risk. It's also a good reason for not allowing unions into essential government jobs.

The main problem with unions is that the only effective weapon they have is the strike, and that too many of their members are not committed enough to risk losing their jobs over small issues. This leads to coercion and thuggery, in various forms, to force them to accept the union line. Union leadership lives off of dues paid by workers and if everything is going well, they cannot justify those dues, so they compensate by keeping the members pissed off at management. They tend to employ the same misinformation and propaganda tactics used by the Democrat Party and other socialist organizations to keep the members 'whipped up' into an emotional frenzy that will accept no compromise from any reasonable source. If there are no major problems, they create some out of the host of minor ones that nearly all employees anywhere have.

Capitalism depends upon free individuals with enough entrepreneurial spirit (and talent) to risk whatever they have for the likelihood that they can create new wealth. That new wealth serves them, and to a lesser extent, the workers who earn wages for doing the work. Good companies will reward their employees for good work. Bad companies will not, and their employees will become disgruntled and quit, to find something better. This is completely normal human behavior. It's not a perfect system, but it is the way individual freedom works. With all of its faults, it still serves *the majority *better than anything government or unions can devise, because governments and unions are human entities that become corrupt, over time. Capitalism relies on the principles of supply and demand, and that is a completely natural phenomena that humans have proven for centuries that they can understand and thrive in.

The alternative to capitalism is socialism in all its various forms, and it has never worked and never will for any significant length of time, because it relies on government to level the playing field. That always involves corruption and always ends in using the lowest common denominator of the public's standard of living as a standard for everyone...except the 'elites' who preside over it. Everyone else will be equally poor. Socialism only works until it has used up _everybody else's _money.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> It is somehow refreshing on this chilly but sunny December morning to read right-wingers moaning about SCOTUS.
> 
> Does my heart good to see you on my side of the aisle for a change.


Well since the left-wingers have had their way since Roosevelt stacked the court, what do you expect?


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I've always supported the Davis-Bacon act.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Employers and Corporations did not feel generous and decide to give you two days off every week to have a social/personal life. (We now call them weekends). Corporations did not just feel like being nice one day and give their employees paid vacations. CEOs didn't get together in a board room and say "Let's give our employees more rights at work" or "Maybe there should be laws to limit our power over an employee".



Virtually ALL the benefits you have at work, whether you work in the public or private sector, all of the benefits and rights you enjoy everyday are there because unions fought hard and long for them against big business who did everything they could to prevent giving you your rights. Many union leaders and members even lost their lives for things we take for granted today.



The right-wing attack on unions is nothing more than ignorance, lack of education, and propaganda.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Well since the left-wingers have had their way since Roosevelt stacked the court, what do you expect?


Don't think many of his appointees are still in there, y'know. Currently it is a Republican majority.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

But the individual has the right to find other employment, or start their own business. That said, this is another perfect example of how government is not in any way restricted, but has become an overbearing, tyrannical body forcing unlawful orders on the people. However, as long as the People stand for it, the People deserve it. 

This has been going on for years, and it will not stop until the people take back the power that was rightly given to them (US) from a higher power than any governing body could grant.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

pic said:


> Employers and Corporations did not feel generous and decide to give you two days off every week to have a social/personal life. (We now call them weekends). Corporations did not just feel like being nice one day and give their employees paid vacations. CEOs didn't get together in a board room and say "Let's give our employees more rights at work" or "Maybe there should be laws to limit our power over an employee".
> 
> Virtually ALL the benefits you have at work, whether you work in the public or private sector, all of the benefits and rights you enjoy everyday are there because unions fought hard and long for them against big business who did everything they could to prevent giving you your rights. Many union leaders and members even lost their lives for things we take for granted today.
> 
> The right-wing attack on unions is nothing more than ignorance, lack of education, and propaganda.


I have to disagree on this point. Unions did not fight for you. They fought for themselves under the premise of fighting for you, just like the government does. Let there be no doubt that the Union found a way to make money, and they have been doing it ever since. It's as big a sham as the government.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

H


GCBHM said:


> But the individual has the right to find other employment, or start their own business. That said, this is another perfect example of how government is not in any way restricted, but has become an overbearing, tyrannical body forcing unlawful orders on the people. However, as long as the People stand for it, the People deserve it.
> 
> This has been going on for years, and it will not stop until the people take back the power that was rightly given to them (US) from a higher power than any governing body could grant.


It's not easy to just quit a job when you have a family to feed and bills to pay.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

pic said:


> H
> 
> It's not easy to just quit a job when you have a family to feed and bills to pay.


This is true, but it is liberty. Most people don't want true liberty b/c it means complete self-sufficiency. We have grown accustomed to Uncle Sam's handouts. Too many people want a job rather than making their own living, and I know first hand how tough owning your own business is. Still, it is a choice we, as individuals, get to make. The trouble is, instead of being happy with our choices, we tend to want to strong-arm the man into giving us a higher wage than what we agreed to for the same work. That has become the American way.

I agree with the SouthernBoy. "If enough people don't like a company's policy, the company will have a more difficult time hiring and keeping valuable employees and even attracting customers. Get the government off the backs of business and let it do what it does best; be the engine of capitalism and wealth." Exactly right! Anyone who thinks the government/union is fighting for the rights of the people...well, aren't you the same people crying about how the government is trying to take away your gun rights?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> Employers and Corporations did not feel generous and decide to give you two days off every week to have a social/personal life. (We now call them weekends). Corporations did not just feel like being nice one day and give their employees paid vacations. CEOs didn't get together in a board room and say "Let's give our employees more rights at work" or "Maybe there should be laws to limit our power over an employee".
> 
> Virtually ALL the benefits you have at work, whether you work in the public or private sector, all of the benefits and rights you enjoy everyday are there because unions fought hard and long for them against big business who did everything they could to prevent giving you your rights. Many union leaders and members even lost their lives for things we take for granted today.
> 
> *The right-wing attack on unions is nothing more than ignorance, lack of education, and propaganda.*


Oh really?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Don't think many of his appointees are still in there, y'know. Currently it is a Republican majority.


As of maybe five and a half weeks.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> H
> 
> It's not easy to just quit a job when you have a family to feed and bills to pay.


So find a way out. I did.

Not only did I have a family to feed and bills to pay, I was also putting myself through college... which was my way out. I did this for eleven years (apprenticeship training followed by college) part time at night, including summers, while working full time at an average of 48 hours a week. And I was seriously scared that if my employer found out what I was doing, he would fire me.

But you know what? It did get me the better, higher paying jobs and now gives me a nice retirement.

My only personal relationship with union people was not to my liking. And BTW, my grandfather was the secretary of a large national union for 22 years.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SouthernBoy said:


> So find a way out. I did.
> 
> Not only did I have a family to feed and bills to pay, I was also putting myself through college... which was my way out. I did this for eleven years (apprenticeship training followed by college) part time at night, including summers, while working full time at an average of 48 hours a week. And I was seriously scared that if my employer found out what I was doing, he would fire me.
> 
> But you know what? It did get me the better, higher paying jobs and now gives me a nice retirement.


Because the shoe fits your feet, everyone else should wear your shoes?


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

pic said:


> Because the shoe fits your feet, everyone else should wear your shoes?


I'll make a somewhat educated guess - that a lot of folks don't have brains that work as good as SouthernBoy's, never mind the shoes.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> Because the shoe fits your feet, everyone else should wear your shoes?


Nope. But think about this. For the most part, people are where they are in their life because they took conscious and deliberate decisions that put them there. The man who jumps for bad job to bad job, or can't even hold down a job, is doing this because he took decisions that led him to this point in his life.

So in answer to your question, "Because the shoe fits your feet, everyone else should wear your shoes?", in retrospect, hell yes. I say this from the prospective of pulling one's self up by their own boots and taking the initiative to better their lives. Anyone can do this in this country. It's not hard and the system is geared in such a way to encourage this. I know because I have been through it myself while watching others complain about their lot in life as they bought those two sixpacks for the weekend instead of enrolling in some educational program that would better their lives.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> I'll make a somewhat educated guess - that a lot of folks don't have brains that work as good as SouthernBoy's, never mind the shoes.


Why thank you, sir. That's a nice compliment.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Why thank you, sir. That's a nice compliment.


OK, but I had an ulterior motive.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Let me put it this way, pic, so you may be able to understand better.

I didn't graduate with my high school class as I failed two subjects in my senior year, which put me 1/2 a credit down. After high school I carried mail for about 15 months then sold women's shoes for four years thinking I would go to college. I did enter college as a non-degree student (no high school diploma) but just pissed that away until I quit.

Then I worked in the electrical wholesale business for eleven years. While there, I enrolled in the Northern Virginia Electrical Apprenticeship Training program thinking I wanted to be an electrician but two years into that, I knew that was not what I wanted to do with my life. I did finish all four years and graduated with the second highest grade.

I turned right around and got my G.E.D. and re-enrolled in college to study computer science (called Data Processing Technology then). I finished that degree and got another one in Business Management. In 1980, after sending out 79 resumes, I was hired by a large corporation as an entry level programmer and have never looked back. I retired after 29 years in software development (as a software engineer), with half of those years doing contract work. Along the way, my wife and I raised a family and sent our two daughters to two fine universities in Virginia: UVA and VA Tech.

So it can be done by anyone who has the motivation and the drive to see it through. I don't suffer excuses because I did take the time and made the effort to better myself and see no reason why anyone else can't do the same thing.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

BTW, I don't want what I wrote above to sound like I'm blowing my own horn. My purpose was to show that anyone with normal intelligence can improve their lives. It does take work and sacrifice but the rewards are well worth it. Working in the electrical wholesale business exposed me to a lot of people who only seemed to know how to complain. Lots of attrition and lots of mediocre effort. It used to tickle me while I was busting my ass going through college. When I gave my notice and word got out what I had been up to for the last three years, those people were pretty well shocked.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> As of maybe five and a half weeks.


Why - what happened 5-and-a-half weeks ago that I missed? (or is that "will happen in 5-and-a-half weeks?")


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

U


SouthernBoy said:


> Let me put it this way, pic, so you may be able to understand better.
> 
> I didn't graduate with my high school class as I failed two subjects in my senior year, which put me 1/2 a credit down. After high school I carried mail for about 15 months then sold women's shoes for four years thinking I would go to college. I did enter college as a non-degree student (no high school diploma) but just pissed that away until I quit.
> 
> ...


I understand that your path in life belongs to you, and I commend you for your achievements.
But to slam unions , just because it does not reflect your path or you had a bad experience with union representation,,,,it may reflect my chosen path, or another's. I feel that your not judging or respecting fairly , another's path or livelihood.
School teachers, Police officers , Firemen , Nurses, etc.

I made a decent wage , great health benefits, and a good pension plan. As a union member.

But I understand how one could be influenced that *all* Unions are bad. There has been very strong misinformation campaigns bought and paid for by big business.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> U
> 
> I understand that your path in life belongs to you, and I commend you for your achievements.
> But to slam unions , just because it does not reflect your path or you had a bad experience with union representation,,,,it may reflect my chosen path, or another's. I feel that your not judging or respecting fairly , another's path or livelihood.
> ...


Never slammed 'em. Go back and read post #4. As far as the teacher's union, that thing has done nothing to help students and everything to keep deadbeat teachers employed (straight from a teacher's mouth). Police officers, firemen, etc. Their pensions are bankrupting municipalities across the nation. Not all unions are bad but many have outlived their usefulness. My only personal experience with them was when I was working for the Post Office. I got badgered quite a bit to join by the shop foreman and his crew.

Around 18 years ago I was working a contract at a major communications company. The Communications Workers of America was pushing to force software development personnel to be unionized (of course that can't work in my state). We were completely against it. I saw first hand what strong governmental control could have over a company (a French company in this other case) and did not wish to see that here. But we did get some of it at that French corporation.

Let me ask you a question. How do you feel about closed shops? How do you feel about employers firing strikers and hiring people to replace them? Just curious.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I've been exposed to Closed shops. 
The workers are all on the same page. The employer is making money.
The employees are making a fair wage according to their contract.

Striking is a last resort. It may be an equal to your, " just quit and find another job solution"

Striking , It says that the workers stand together to fight for decent working conditions and that their dispute with the employer is so important that they are willing to lose pay to fight for a fair workplace. It tells the public and other workers that they might not want to patronize, or work for, the employer unless changes are made. 

Strikes build solidarity among the workers and help them maintain their resolve under the severe pressure of losing income while on strike. 

Strikes are also an expression of control by the workers, who may feel that the employer treats them as if they were nothing more than a live form of raw materials.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> I've been exposed to Closed shops.
> The workers are all on the same page. The employer is making money.
> The employees are making a fair wage according to their contract.
> 
> ...


Understand, I am not against striking. I just believe that if they do this, they do it at their own risk. If an employer is really bad, two things will happen. They will have a problem keeping good employees and they will lose customers. Not every time, but more often than not. For these employers striking may very well be a good path to take. But again, the strikers do this at their own risk.

On the other hand, closed shops are anathema to a free market system. More like Bolsheviks in their desire to control workers and blackmail employers.

As for unions down here, in general they don't do very well in the South. Now part of this is historical but part of it is many large corporations that have relocated to this part of the country do fine by their employees and the employees in turn have consistently voted not to let unions in to their workplace.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

When you boil it down to its essence, the argument is about majority rule - the only possible way any type of democratic government can survive. Unions do not serve the majority - they serve the people who were lucky enough to get union jobs and then they revile those who weren't. If the majority of the public ever does become members of unions, you will see the economy plummet, like it has done under the current socialistic government, because small business cannot survive if they have to pay unskilled workers the same wages as the genuine craftsmen who actually create products that people will buy. Unions, like any other form of socialism, promote mediocrity, and mediocrity among the masses means no creation of new wealth.

Union members must learn to close their eyes to all of these things and argue their position as if the robber-barons of the distant past are still killing workers, en masse, with their hardball tactics. In those days, the extreme measures taken by unions countered the extreme measures taken by the robber-barons. It was a time of radicalism on both sides that has now moderated into something that actually works, when reasonable people can agree.

There is a place for unions in modern society, but they need to accept that business needs to thrive (not merely survive) for the rank and file to remain prosperous, and that to do that, workers must be compensated according to their economic value - not their needs. Typically, union leadership will never agree to this, and use their skills to paint management as robber-barons.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Bisley said:


> [...]
> There is a place for unions in modern society, but they need to accept that business needs to thrive (not merely survive) for the rank and file to remain prosperous, and that to do that, workers must be compensated according to their economic value - not their needs. Typically, union leadership will never agree to this, and use their skills to paint management as robber-barons.


In the part of your post I snipped in the quote, you laid the paint on unions pretty thick. Reads like plutocratic spin doctoring to me.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

hillman said:


> In the part of your post I snipped in the quote, you laid the paint on unions pretty thick. Reads like plutocratic spin doctoring to me.


Just my opinion, based upon being a neutral observer during contract negotiations, and being interested enough to try to find some objective commentary on the history of labor unions.

Your two sentence 'canned' reply to my 'thoughtful' opinion on the subject does nothing but reinforce that opinion. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have tried to examine the subject as objectively as any person can who has found himself caught in the middle, with friends on both sides of the argument.

If I "laid the paint on unions pretty thick," I'd like to know which individual points I tried to make were exaggerated - maybe I will need to back-up, but you haven't said anything yet that makes me think I should. You could start by defining "plutocratic spin."


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Bisley said:


> Just my opinion, based upon being a neutral observer during contract negotiations, and being interested enough to try to find some objective commentary on the history of labor unions.
> 
> Your two sentence 'canned' reply to my 'thoughtful' opinion on the subject does nothing but reinforce that opinion. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have tried to examine the subject as objectively as any person can who has found himself caught in the middle, with friends on both sides of the argument.
> 
> If I "laid the paint on unions pretty thick," I'd like to know which individual points I tried to make were exaggerated - maybe I will need to back-up, but you haven't said anything yet that makes me think I should. You could start by defining "plutocratic spin."


Do you believe that you are the only person with knowledge of 'both sides'? That's remarkable. Do you believe that you have special knowledge of the history of the labor movement? Are you saying that you are unaware of plutocratic spin doctoring? Hell, there is nothing I can say to you; you are unreachable.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

hillman said:


> Do you believe that you are the only person with knowledge of 'both sides'? That's remarkable. Do you believe that you have special knowledge of the history of the labor movement? Are you saying that you are unaware of plutocratic spin doctoring? Hell, there is nothing I can say to you; you are unreachable.


Maybe when I'm older, it will all become clear.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Well we see how this thread has degenerated into infighting among some (not a new thing - started pretty much right off when the thread was initiated). These forums on this website are starting to resemble some of the other firearms websites where prima donnas, keyboard commandos, and know-it-all riff-raff roam. Perhaps some of the combatants are the same people with different handles. At any rate, what has been a good website with civil discourse is becoming something less than civil.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Well we see how this thread has degenerated into infighting among some (not a new thing - started pretty much right off when the thread was initiated). These forums on this website are starting to resemble some of the other firearms websites where prima donnas, keyboard commandos, and know-it-all riff-raff roam. Perhaps some of the combatants are the same people with different handles. At any rate, what has been a good website with civil discourse is becoming something less than civil.


Hah. Can I be a "Keyboard Commando" if I can only 'hunt and peck'? BTW: Civil is not a synonym for agreeable.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SouthernBoy said:


> Well we see how this thread has degenerated into infighting among some (not a new thing - started pretty much right off when the thread was initiated). These forums on this website are starting to resemble some of the other firearms websites where prima donnas, keyboard commandos, and know-it-all riff-raff roam. Perhaps some of the combatants are the same people with different handles. At any rate, what has been a good website with civil discourse is becoming something less than civil.


Who are you referring to ? 
I didn't see any problem? 
If I offended anybody I apologize.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Or are you just getting the last word in as usual,lol.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

pic said:


> Who are you referring to ?
> I didn't see any problem?
> If I offended anybody I apologize.


Just in this thread, or can I take advantage of that from all the others. 



I would there has been "lively discussion" here. On such things are civilizations built. no discussion means a closed mind - and that is bad no matter what the situation is. As long as we aren'tnsulting each other, then discussion is useful. Shoot, even _*I*_'ve learnt something in here. (hold the laughter till the door shuts, please)


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Bisley said:


> Maybe when I'm older, it will all become clear.


Mea culpa. The SAD season is beginning for me, and my patience level is dropping. I have been both a union steward and a salaried employee with a company that hired me before the union came in. I have friends from both the left and the right, who keep sending me WEB links to The Truth About Something-Or Other, some which are worth checking out. I read a lot, some of it nonfiction. I've 'been around', in the Air Force in the '50s and as a field service tech 70s-and 80s. I'm pretty sure I don't know everything worth knowing, but some of this stuff ain't rocket science and it ain't secret. All of that doesn't mean I can brush you off, but sometimes I just get so damned tired.

Merry Christmas.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

No problem, here. I'm always open to learn something new, and I don't get my feelings hurt easily. This is the way men talk to each other sometimes, and it works out fine as long as everybody more or less minds their manners.

Merry Christmas to you, also.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Sorry gentlemen. Perhaps I came across a little to harsh in my post #35. There are a few other threads on some other gun websites where this sort of thing is most definitely taking place and though I elect not to take part in the uncivil banter, it still grieves me to see this taking place.

Good and healthy discussions of differing opinions and ideas, performed in a civil manner, serves everyone and is the stuff of being human. Name calling, innuendo, and insults are only products of a weak and disjointed mind. My brother used to have a wonderful saying about this. "Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind trying to express itself forceably". I still love that little tidbit.

So good friends, please excuse my momentary depart in #35 and chalk it up to a bit of frustration due to seeing this on other sights and not wishing it to visit us here on this one.


P.S. As an afterthought, I am by no means a politically correct or sensitive person.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Bisley said:


> No problem, here. I'm always open to learn something new, and I don't get my feelings hurt easily. This is the way men talk to each other sometimes, and it works out fine as long as everybody more or less minds their manners.
> 
> Merry Christmas to you, also.


I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Grand Turino where Eastwood's character is teaching the boy how men talk to each other in the barber shop.


----------

