Disney was totally anti-union, Does that mean if you had a contract with him, you were anti-union?

[Stuart G]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/26/film.usa

If you had some kind of contract with the original anti-union asshole, Walt Disney, and you made some money off of the contract, or you received a service from him in some way..does dealing with this asshole, Disney, automatically mean, that you to are anti - union in all your beliefs and actions?

Think about this clearly, Having a contract with someone, does not mean you hold their beliefs or ideas. Services are performed, goods are exchanged, etc....Disney did everything to break unions and pay women less than men. So a contract with is company..for something, does that mean you too are anti-union. Even if you make a lot of money from the contract, say ....does that mean you personally are anti-union..if lets say, on other jobs, you employ union workers, or give money to union causes, but this anti-union boss.., allows you to continue your business..and perform many other jobs with your union employees..
.but on this job, it is strckly to provide the service and money contracted......

You did on that job work for the "anti union asshole" Think about it....Perhaps on that job, for that service everything went according to contract..Outside of that contract, you are strongly union, and profess everything favorable for unions. What if you still have a contract for a service with that "asshole" for some work, from time to time...Does that make you anti-union? Think about it..

[bettyellen]

1. Not the same as working for - and loaning legitimacy to- a hostile foreign government. Not the same

[NurseJackie]

2. You saw right thought it too, didn't ya?

[Stuart G]

4. It is the same, you are giving "legitimacy" to a hostile business..

You are working for them, and providing a service..

[bettyellen]

9. Sabotage from a hostile foreign nation is NOT the same, not at all.

[Aristus]

3. Back when I was a Medical Assistant, I worked for an extremely right-wing doctor

who was almost violently anti-union. Working for him did not mean I espoused his views. It just meant I needed the job, and I took it. After a year or so, I found a better job with a union-associated medical clinic, and never looked back. I was a proud member of SEIU Local 1199 for three years before being accepted to Physician Assistant School.

You take the job you can get...

[Stuart G]

5. That is correct..you take what you can get..You do the best you can. I agree.

[mythology]

6. The analogy fails because Disney films and shows weren't propaganda

Russia Today is a propaganda arm of the Russian government. Also Disney doesn't have a history of imprisoning or just flat out killing anybody who disagreed with him. Disney also didn't set out to interfere in elections in other countries with stealing and selectively releasing out of context documents.

So no, this isn't even remotely comparable.

[Stuart G]

8. It is comparable...you were financing a fascist ..are you a facist too?

Disney fired all union organizers in the 40s..Many quit because of his fascist anti women practices. You had contract with him, he stood for something..

[bettyellen]

10. You're saying it's okay for Russia to hack the election because you don't like Americas system?

So THEY might as well take it over? Install puppets becasuenwere too commerce oriented? That's crazy.

[Orsino]

7. And yet...

...if in one's work one seeks to partner with a known anti-union asshole, in a deal likely to net the asshole enough revenue to pour back into lobbying against unions, yeah, maybe one does own a piece of that.

But we all gotta eat.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. The sole purpose of Russia Today is to spread Putinite propaganda

That's why your friend Thom Hartmann is a Putinite piece of shit.

The sole purpose of Walt Disney was not to spread anti-union beliefs. That was, of course, incidental to the actual purpose of Disney: to make money. However, people who worked for Disney at the time were relatively responsible for their involvement. The difference is in the intent of the organization.

The actual analogy is not some random organization with owners or operators with some beliefs, but an organization explicitly devoted to X belief and mission. If somebody worked for a Right-to-Work anti-union think tank, even as a technical writer, say, then yes, that person is discredited utterly because the sole purpose of the organization is union-busting. That's the analogy to your Putinite shitbag friend Thom Hartmann. He is involved with an organization whose sole purpose is to spread Putinite messages and implement a Putinite media plan. So you bet your bippy he's Putinite trash, in a way that a cartoonist for Disney in 1949 wasn't a union-buster.

But your post at least makes this much clear: the goal in all these Hartmann posts seems not so much to alibi Thom Hartmann as to legitimize and normalize Russia Today. We're now meant to think of the despicable Putinite propaganda engine as equivalent to Disney, or MSNBC (in the other very similar thread)? They're all equally biased, tra la la! That's what we've fucking come to in this discussion? Good God.

[FSogol]

12. Very obvious: An attempt "to legitimize and normalize Russia Today"

Is this the 4th thread today that is doing this?

Admins?

[NightWatcher]

13. Mickey Mouse is not the same as Putin

[BannonsLiver]

14. Looks like a lame attempt at "whataboutism" to me.

[Blue_true]

15. A tortured attempt to justify being hired by the Russian government?

The two aren't remotely the same.