Why McCain would be a mediocre president

[Pioneer]

What would be a far more relevant arguement would be to go to the parts of the country that are heavily Democratic and take a look around, what kind of cars do you see?

 

 

What does that have to do with him lying?

[4rd4life]

What would be a far more relevant arguement would be to go to the parts of the country that are heavily Democratic and take a look around, what kind of cars do you see?

 

You should have done a little research before coming up with that remark, Ford has lost market share on the F-150 in Texas because of the Tundra plant Republican state as well as others.

Nissan, Honda and Toyota assembly plants are located in these states- Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, Indiana, and Ohio and these states led in import sales along with Alabama, and Georgia.

[mulewright]

You should have done a little research before coming up with that remark, Ford has lost market share on the F-150 in Texas because of the Tundra plant Republican state as well as others.

Nissan, Honda and Toyota assembly plants are located in these states- Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, Indiana, and Ohio and these states led in import sales along with Alabama, and Georgia.

 

I am well aware of where the transplants are building their plants but I wasn't born yesterday, go to California , Oregon, ....... and try and find a domestic car. The blue states have been buying very high numbers of foreign nameplates for a long time and provided the justification for them to build plants here.

 

BTW there are two reasons the transplants build in the states you mentioned... their fear of unions and the high cost of doing business in places like Michigan.

Edited September 13, 2008 by mulewright

[methos]

BTW there are two reasons the transplants build in the states you mentioned... their fear of unions and the high cost of doing business in places like Michigan.

 

 

I agree. The reason behind that is those state's "right to work laws" derived from The Taft-Hartley Act, which was passed by Republican's and adopted primarily by Republican/Conservative legislators.

 

Keep drinking the Kool Aid, and you'll likely find out more about it when you move further south in hopes of employment. Republican's hate unions, always have. Fought against the National Labor Relations Act (the act that cemented our success) and they have been fighting us ever since. That includes McCain as well.

[Floyd Lawson]

I agree. The reason behind that is those state's "right to work laws" derived from The Taft-Hartley Act, which was passed by Republican's and adopted primarily by Republican/Conservative legislators.

 

Keep drinking the Kool Aid, and you'll likely find out more about it when you move further south in hopes of employment. Republican's hate unions, always have. Fought against the National Labor Relations Act (the act that cemented our success) and they have been fighting us ever since. That includes McCain as well.

Almost true, The Taft-Hartley Act was vetoed by Truman and Congress over-rode that veto. As we all know it take two-thirds of either house to do that. Although the Republicans held a majority in both at that time, they did not hold a two-thirds majority. So that would mean that some of your beloved Democrats voted against this act.

What flavor you Kool-Aid do you like?

[methos]

Almost true, The Taft-Hartley Act was vetoed by Truman and Congress over-rode that veto. As we all know it take two-thirds of either house to do that. Although the Republicans held a majority in both at that time, they did not hold a two-thirds majority. So that would mean that some of your beloved Democrats voted against this act.

What flavor you Kool-Aid do you like?

 

 

What kind of moron are you? Do you really want to argue the differences between the two parties on labor issues? Like I said, if so, you're a fucking retard, and I'll be happy to prove it.

 

Sure, Democrats joined Republicans in the override, but that's the point, it was a Republican initiative. A Democrat, Truman vetoed it. Virtually all Republican’s voted for it, as is always the case. Democrats have let us down on occasion, namely this instance and another when they joined another Republican initiative, NAFTA. That said, unions would not exist without Democratic support via the NLRA. I can cite dozens of initiatives and acts passed by Democrats in our support; can you name one Republican initiative that favored labor? Hell no you can't because there isn't one.

 

Keep drinking that Kool aid bitch. From my count, it’s like 57-2 for the Democrats and it’s a no hitter for the Republican’s.

[retro-man]

I am well aware of where the transplants are building their plants but I wasn't born yesterday, go to California , Oregon, ....... and try and find a domestic car. The blue states have been buying very high numbers of foreign nameplates for a long time and provided the justification for them to build plants here.

 

BTW there are two reasons the transplants build in the states you mentioned... their fear of unions and the high cost of doing business in places like Michigan.

I'm a blue state liberal, and I buy domestic wherever possible. Period. And I know plenty others like me. I'm no apologist for the laissez faire free trade globalization that is undermining our economy, our society, and our democracy. Look to the vested Republican "hard headed" (read "hard hearted") moneyed elite for that. And they have you thinking it's working! Sure it is. For them.

[Mark B. Morrow]

I'm a Blue State moderate. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans. I have never owned a foreign car. Pittsburgh is a very Blue city and domestics outnumber imports by a wide margin.

[Floyd Lawson]

What kind of moron are you? Do you really want to argue the differences between the two parties on labor issues? Like I said, if so, you're a fucking retard, and I'll be happy to prove it.

 

Sure, Democrats joined Republicans in the override, but that's the point, it was a Republican initiative. A Democrat, Truman vetoed it. Virtually all Republican’s voted for it, as is always the case. Democrats have let us down on occasion, namely this instance and another when they joined another Republican initiative, NAFTA. That said, unions would not exist without Democratic support via the NLRA. I can cite dozens of initiatives and acts passed by Democrats in our support; can you name one Republican initiative that favored labor? Hell no you can't because there isn't one.

 

Keep drinking that Kool aid bitch. From my count, it’s like 57-2 for the Democrats and it’s a no hitter for the Republican’s.

Just keeping you honest and I must say you didn't disappoint me with your response. Arrogant and condesending as usual.

And with your superior intellect it goes without saying that you are aware that union membership is down significantly over time, with government employees making up the majority of the present membership. It's a dying breed, ever wonder why?

[Edstock]

Sure it is. For them.

 

Check out http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/13/f...ns-burn-agents/

 

Former CIA third in command and indicted Cunningham bribery scandal co-conspirator Kyle “Dusty” Foggo is threatening to out agents, secret programs and Bush administration skeletons in an attempt to ward of a possible jail sentence on 30 counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.

 

Never heard of him, but this could be a real can of Bush worms.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Check out http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/13/f...ns-burn-agents/

 

Former CIA third in command and indicted Cunningham bribery scandal co-conspirator Kyle “Dusty” Foggo is threatening to out agents, secret programs and Bush administration skeletons in an attempt to ward of a possible jail sentence on 30 counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.

 

Never heard of him, but this could be a real can of Bush worms.

 

 

He'll get a Bush pardon in a couple of months just like Scooter Libby got his sentence commuted. Libby will probably get his pardon after election day. Sadly, Clinton issued lots of questionable or down right wrong pardons on his way out.

Edited September 14, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[AAISkinsFan]

Check out http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/13/f...ns-burn-agents/

 

Former CIA third in command and indicted Cunningham bribery scandal co-conspirator Kyle “Dusty” Foggo is threatening to out agents, secret programs and Bush administration skeletons in an attempt to ward of a possible jail sentence on 30 counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.

 

Never heard of him, but this could be a real can of Bush worms.

I remember that guy...him and his buddy "Duke". I just read where Carol C. Lam (one of the Federal Prosecutors the Bush administration fired for performance related issues) was on of the US Attorneys involved in the initial investigation in San Diego. How ironic...

[methos]

union membership is down significantly over time, with government employees making up the majority of the present membership. It's a dying breed, ever wonder why?

 

 

It’s no mystery, as to the decline of union membership. Republican’s have done all that they could to bust up and lessen union numbers; hence, it’s influence. That includes McCain, he has voted against unions in the government and supports outsourcing. The last twenty of the last twenty-eight years we’ve had Republican’s in the Oval Office and not only have they instituted policies that weakened labor’s influence, they have created economic and trade policies that have weakened the country.

 

 

It’s remarkable that 30-40% of union workers vote Republican, and in return they get nothing; in fact, the republican’s are not only decreasing our numbers, but also making it less safe for workers.

 

 

Sure Clinton signed NAFTA, and while I think Free Trade is good, it’s just that we need better provisions and fair enforcement of such. Clinton made a mistake with NAFTA, as his first trade pact, but the remaining three included labor provisions. Some have suggested having those provisions is imperialistic on our part, nonsense! What provisions has Bush included that protected labor, or ensured that their pollution didn’t harm us, not one. Look at all the pollution that passes over our coastal states via China.

 

 

The only thing Republican’s care about are the interests of their masters, the corporations. They use family values as a mantra to attract the ignorant masses all the while they are destroying those same families via the erosion of the principles that lifted them up from poverty over a century ago.

 

 

This is a great paper on the subject.

SSRN_id984330_1_.pdf

[RangerM]

It’s remarkable that 30-40% of union workers vote Republican, and in return they get nothing

 

I have cherry-picked this from you post, but it is illustrative of a problem with the electorate.

 

"What can I get if I vote for this candidate", should not be the first question a person asks. This is an extension of the class warfare that often happens in every campaign.

 

{to a crowd of old people} "Vote for Republicans and they'll take away your Social Security"

 

"Vote for me, and I'll lower your taxes, and get the rich to pay for your healthcare"

 

Campaigns should not be a contest of who promises more (of anything) to whom.

[Len_A]

I have cherry-picked this from you post, but it is illustrative of a problem with the electorate.

 

"What can I get if I vote for this candidate", should not be the first question a person asks. This is an extension of the class warfare that often happens in every campaign.

 

{to a crowd of old people} "Vote for Republicans and they'll take away your Social Security"

 

"Vote for me, and I'll lower your taxes, and get the rich to pay for your healthcare"

 

Campaigns should not be a contest of who promises more (of anything) to whom.

methos is right to criticize union members who vote republican. The GOP does very little for blue-collar union members. They oppose work safety legislation. They oppose anything that makes it easy for workers to join unions. And the bottom line, is that the GOP will, more often than not, support the financial benefit of the corporation and the large stockholder over the financial benefit of the employee, even if it means the employee's job gets off-shored.

[RangerM]

methos is right to criticize union members who vote republican. The GOP does very little for blue-collar union members. They oppose work safety legislation.

Like what? What specific legislation do they oppose that doesn't already exist in some form?

They oppose anything that makes it easy for workers to join unions.

 

Are you referring to the "Employee Free Choice Act"? I oppose it, for the simple reason that it gets rid of the secret ballot, when deciding to unionize, thus allowing for coercion. Read this, if you don't think that happens.

 

And the bottom line, is that the GOP will, more often than not, support the financial benefit of the corporation and the large stockholder over the financial benefit of the employee, even if it means the employee's job gets off-shored.

 

How? If you mean that corporations who offshore pay less taxes (thus providing economic incentive), you are correct. I favor getting rid of Corporate taxes altogether, since it's the customer/employee/shareholder who pays them, anyway. BUT, if you mean that the government writes a check to companies who offshore, I'd like to see that evidence.

[methos]

Like what? What specific legislation do they oppose that doesn't already exist in some form?

 

 

Are you referring to the "Employee Free Choice Act"? I oppose it, for the simple reason that it gets rid of the secret ballot, when deciding to unionize, thus allowing for coercion. Read this, if you don't think that happens.

 

 

 

How? If you mean that corporations who offshore pay less taxes (thus providing economic incentive), you are correct. I favor getting rid of Corporate taxes altogether, since it's the customer/employee/shareholder who pays them, anyway. BUT, if you mean that the government writes a check to companies who offshore, I'd like to see that evidence.

 

 

Off the top of my head, just in the last eight years; (1) In the formation of Homeland Security, tried to do so via banning the new department from forming a union; (2) Dismantled new safety legislation passed during the Clinton term; (3) Fought against any minimum wage increases; (4) Bush free trade pacts did not include labor or environmental regulations, at least nothing enforceable, thus speeding the flight of jobs overseas; (5) A great deal of what occurs behind the scenes never make the headlines, but Bush appoints cronies to such positions as the NLRB and they make laws that greatly affect workers rights or by not enforcing existing laws. Another example is that the Sec of Labor passed a law in secret relaxing work place safety rules among many others until the Democrats called her out on it; (6) Bush signed off on many Federal labor agreements on his taking office. Had notices posted on "right to work laws" but forbade notices on the right to join unions.

 

I really can go on ad nausea, but I think it would be a helluva lot simpler for you to prove me wrong by finding one, just ONE thing that Bush has done if favor of labor or unions?

[RangerM]

Off the top of my head, just in the last eight years; (1) In the formation of Homeland Security, tried to do so via banning the new department from forming a union;

 

That's one, but given the importance of the job, one that I don't have a problem with. Perhaps the Military should unionize?

(2) Dismantled new safety legislation passed during the Clinton term;

Which one?

 

(3) Fought against any minimum wage increases;

 

But signed it anyway.

 

(4) Bush free trade pacts did not include labor or environmental regulations, at least nothing enforceable, thus speeding the flight of jobs overseas;

 

At the foreign countrys' behest. Bear in mind, it was CLINTON who signed NAFTA, not Bush.

 

(5) A great deal of what occurs behind the scenes never make the headlines, but Bush appoints cronies to such positions as the NLRB and they make laws that greatly affect workers rights or by not enforcing existing laws. Another example is that the Sec of Labor passed a law in secret relaxing work place safety rules among many others until the Democrats called her out on it;

 

You are getting dangerously close to conspiracy on that first one. That doesn't carry much weight. Please provide the circumstance and he source on that last one.

 

I can provide a link to a proposed regulation that may fit your assertion, but I fail to see how adding scrutiny of an exposure limit fails to respond to workers needs.

(6) Bush signed off on many Federal labor agreements on his taking office. Had notices posted on "right to work laws" but forbade notices on the right to join unions.

 

Links please, from non-partisan sources.

 

I really can go on ad nausea, but I think it would be a helluva lot simpler for you to prove me wrong by finding one, just ONE thing that Bush has done if favor of labor or unions?

I can't name one thing that Bush has done in favor of unions. (I am assuming you equate labor with union, which I don't), other than signing the minimum wage increase.

 

People are still free to join a union, or not. What would you have him do?

[Mark B. Morrow]

That's one, but given the importance of the job, one that I don't have a problem with. Perhaps the Military should unionize?

 

Which one?

 

 

 

But signed it anyway.

 

 

 

At the foreign countrys' behest. Bear in mind, it was CLINTON who signed NAFTA, not Bush.

 

 

 

You are getting dangerously close to conspiracy on that first one. That doesn't carry much weight. Please provide the circumstance and he source on that last one.

 

I can provide a link to a proposed regulation that may fit your assertion, but I fail to see how adding scrutiny of an exposure limit fails to respond to workers needs.

 

 

Links please, from non-partisan sources.

 

 

I can't name one thing that Bush has done in favor of unions. (I am assuming you equate labor with union, which I don't), other than signing the minimum wage increase.

 

Bush initially vetoed the minimum wage increase and only signed the bill when it was attached to funding the Iraq War.

 

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/05/02/minimum-...y-of-bush-veto/

 

People are still free to join a union, or not. What would you have him do?

Edited September 14, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[methos]

That's one, but given the importance of the job, one that I don't have a problem with. Perhaps the Military should unionize?

 

Which one?

 

 

 

But signed it anyway.

 

 

 

At the foreign countrys' behest. Bear in mind, it was CLINTON who signed NAFTA, not Bush.

 

 

 

You are getting dangerously close to conspiracy on that first one. That doesn't carry much weight. Please provide the circumstance and he source on that last one.

 

I can provide a link to a proposed regulation that may fit your assertion, but I fail to see how adding scrutiny of an exposure limit fails to respond to workers needs.

 

 

Links please, from non-partisan sources.

 

 

I can't name one thing that Bush has done in favor of unions. (I am assuming you equate labor with union, which I don't), other than signing the minimum wage increase.

 

People are still free to join a union, or not. What would you have him do?

 

I already posted the link on worker safety the previous post. As far as signing off on labor projects, and you're request for a non-partisan link, understandable. Here is the link to the archives, many of the orders aforementioned can be found by clicking on "L" for labor.

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/e...subjects.html#U

 

More links...

 

Here is the AFL-CIO link.

 

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/ns02162001.cfm

 

Another link.

 

http://www.govexec.com/features/1002/1002s1.htm

 

Just found another I was completely unaware of. WSJ reports Bush readying to sign another anti-labor executive order favoring secret ballots over union preferred card checks. A blow for labor.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219971491...=googlenews_wsj

 

Mark already made the case on why Min Wage legislation was passed via bush.

 

The last point was ergonomic legislation that was passed by Clinton that he rescinded.

 

Again, there is more, a lot more, but it would be so much quicker for you to provide just one thing that Republican's have done that is union friendly.

Edited September 14, 2008 by methos

[mettech]

That's one, but given the importance of the job, one that I don't have a problem with. Perhaps the Military should unionize?

 

Which one?

 

 

 

But signed it anyway.

 

 

 

At the foreign countrys' behest. Bear in mind, it was CLINTON who signed NAFTA, not Bush.

 

 

 

You are getting dangerously close to conspiracy on that first one. That doesn't carry much weight. Please provide the circumstance and he source on that last one.

 

I can provide a link to a proposed regulation that may fit your assertion, but I fail to see how adding scrutiny of an exposure limit fails to respond to workers needs.

 

 

Links please, from non-partisan sources.

 

 

I can't name one thing that Bush has done in favor of unions. (I am assuming you equate labor with union, which I don't), other than signing the minimum wage increase.

 

People are still free to join a union, or not. What would you have him do?

 

 

NEVER!!!!!

 

Our military must never belong to a union.

 

In fact, our military personnel should never be guarantee any benefits or pay...

 

 

Does anyone here know why? :shades:

[Pioneer]

Does anyone here know why? :shades:

 

Because they would then oppose illegally invading and occupying a foreign country, and file a grievance?

[methos]

Because they would then oppose illegally invading and occupying a foreign country, and file a grievance?

 

 

<lmao>

[RangerM]

I already posted the link on worker safety the previous post. As far as signing off on labor projects, and you're request for a non-partisan link, understandable. Here is the link to the archives, many of the orders aforementioned can be found by clicking on "L" for labor.

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/e...subjects.html#U

 

I followed this link and here is what I found under "L" for Labor:

 

Contract employees; revocation of nondisplacement requirements under certain Federal contracts: EO 13204

 

Executive Order 12933 provided that workers on a building service contract for a public building be given the right of first refusal for employment with a successor contractor

f they would otherwise lose their jobs as a result of termination of the contract.

 

Given that much of my work is performed under contract, I would have a problem laying off my own people just so I can hire the ones that were there (with the old company) before I won the contract.

 

Your opinion may differ.

 

 

Federal and federally funded construction projects; preservation of open competition and Government neutrality: EO 13202; EO 13208

 

This Executive Order declares that neither the federal government, nor any agency acting with federal assistance, shall require or prohibit construction contractors to sign union agreements as a condition of performing work on government construction projects. The Executive Order puts an end to government-mandated union-only PLAs on federal construction projects, as well as federally-funded or assisted projects.

 

Since I have no problem with "right to work" laws, I am not in favor of forcing contractors to join a union. Nor would I prevent them. I guess you'd prefer that they be FORCED to join a union and pay dues.

 

Labor-management partnership requirements for Federal agencies; revocation: EO 13203

 

Eliminated the labor-management partnerships requirements set under the Clinton administration. Basically it tips the balance of power to management, as opposed to unions. This is not a "union-busting" proposal, but does allow managers the power to implement policy as they see fit, as opposed to a "one-size-fits-all" solution.

 

Union dues or fees; notification of employee rights concerning payment: EO 13201

 

Essentiall says that contractors and subcontractors post notices alerting nonunion employees that they cannot be forced to pay fees to unions to support not related to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

 

You'd prefer people pay dues against their will? I wouldn't.

 

More links...

 

Here is the AFL-CIO link.

 

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/ns02162001.cfm

 

Another link.

 

http://www.govexec.com/features/1002/1002s1.htm

 

The first link is partisan (I look upon any union that way, so don't bother trying another). The second is a document that essentially is the union's view of the aformentioned executive orders.

 

Just found another I was completely unaware of. WSJ reports Bush readying to sign another anti-labor executive order favoring secret ballots over union preferred card checks. A blow for labor.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219971491...=googlenews_wsj

 

Mark already made the case on why Min Wage legislation was passed via bush.

 

The last point was ergonomic legislation that was passed by Clinton that he rescinded.

 

Again, there is more, a lot more, but it would be so much quicker for you to provide just one thing that Republican's have done that is union friendly.

 

I am in favor of secret ballots, as opposed to card checks. I am strongly against unions when they attempt to do away with the secret ballot. How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers' Rights

 

And I'm not alone. Perhaps you recognize some of the democrats who signed this letter advocating them.

Edited September 14, 2008 by RangerM

[RangerM]

Bush initially vetoed the minimum wage increase and only signed the bill when it was attached to funding the Iraq War.[/b]

 

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/05/02/minimum-...y-of-bush-veto/

 

Just curious. What percentage of AFL-CIO members are paid minimum wage?