Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/12/2004 8:19:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 8:58:16 PM EST by lippo]
I am so pissed tonight...calm, take a breathe...

We had a union meeting tonight. I was waiting for someone to stand up and spout out how the AWB is ending and we would all die because of it. I was going to stand up and yell "bull!" and then enlighten them on the reality of it all. This AWB crap has really got me going. I am just sick of all of the stupidity surrounding it and the ignorance of our membership.

So no one said anything about the AWB. But when certain leadership people got up and spoke about "anybody but Bush" and how we need to go to this Kerry rally in October that's over in flint, on an abandoned plant site, I got thinking about Nafta. It got me really pissed, so I spoke up and asked what was happening with our "fight" against Nafta. We signed some post cards a while ago asking to ban the America's trade agreement. So I got mixed up and thought we were asking for a repeal of Nafta. I said, "What's happening with Nafta? Are we fighting to get it repealed or at least so we are on a level playing field?". After the usual, "the republican's are responsible for this, the republican's are responsible for Nafta." I said, "It was our democratic senators that screwed us", "The DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONE'S THAT SCREWED US!". I thought that might awaken some people and I was pretty pissed. He said that it was the republican's that were responsible for it. So, I also told the guy that Clinton was the one that signed it and it was a democratic controlled senate. After a quick exit from this guy, they didn't want me to ask anymore. I am so sick of our union and the democrats selling us out.

That just pissed me off. If I have to go to some Kerry rally for the union, I am going to go with a Bush/Cheney sign. I grew up in a republican home, and consider myself an independent, cause I am sick of all of them. I vote for whom I expect to do the best job or at least, screw us the least. But I don't understand the moronic stupidity of our membership when it comes to the membership following the democrats blindly to their abomination. What did Ross Pero say?..."You are going to here a HUGE sucking sound taking our jobs down to Mexico!" Well, it happened and all I see around here is plant closing and people getting laid off.

Our country is run by corporations and we think we have some control over the process. I've got news for you, WRONG! And we keep voting for one of the two parties. Stupid is as stupid does...just like lemings running over the cliff. When will we wake up?

Oh yeah, and you think the electorial process is fair? One of our own got picked for a post in the electorial college and I can tell you with certainty, that if Bush wins that part of the state, Kerry will still get the electorial vote from this guy. Fair elections? Yeah, right...

Bring on the computer voting booths!

Rant off!

Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:21:25 PM EST
Unions suck.

Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:21:30 PM EST
You've got some balls dude.
We all owe you a beer.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:22:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2004 8:22:13 PM EST by Combat_Jack]
The Congress never voted on NAFTA, Clinton did it. Its called an executive agreement, I believe.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:23:20 PM EST

What did Ross Pero say?..."You are going to here a HUGE sucking sound taking our jobs down to Mexico!" Well, it happened and all I see around here is plant closing and people getting laid off.



Yes sir, that is one reverberation that is unmistaken. Good job handling those yo-yo's.

Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:23:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
Unions suck.




You stole my post.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:23:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:24:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2004 8:25:54 PM EST by The_Groovinator]
I've heard of blue-balls.... but what does 'blackballed' mean?

I hope they don't hold a grudge. Good luck man!

I'd buy you a beer if I could!
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:27:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By lippo:
I am so pissed tonight...calm, take a breathe...

We had a union meeting tonight. I was waiting for someone to stand up and spout out how the AWB is ending and we would all die because of it. I was going to stand up and yell "bull!" and then enlighten them on the reality of it all. This AWB crap has really got me going. I am just sick of all of the stupidity surrounding it and the ignorance of our membership.

So no one said anything about the AWB. But when certain leadership people got up and spoke about "anybody but Bush" and how we need to go to this Kerry rally in October that's over in flint, on an abandoned plant site, I got thinking about Nafta. It got me really pissed, so I spoke up and asked what was happening with our "fight" against Nafta. We signed some post cards a while ago asking to ban the America's trade agreement. So I got mixed up and thought we were asking for a repeal of Nafta. I said, "What's happening with Nafta? Are we fighting to get it repealed or at least so we are on a level playing field?". After the usual, "the republican's are responsible for this, the republican's are responsible for Nafta." I said, "It was our democratic senators that screwed us", "The DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONE'S THAT SCREWED US!". I thought that might awaken some people and I was pretty pissed. He said that it was the republican's that were responsible for it. So, I also told the guy that Clinton was the one that signed it and it was a democratic controlled senate. After a quick exit from this guy, they didn't want me to ask anymore. I am so sick of our union and the democrats selling us out.

That just pissed me off. If I have to go to some Kerry rally for the union, I am going to go with a Bush/Cheney sign. I grew up in a republican home, and consider myself an independent, cause I am sick of all of them. I vote for whom I expect to do the best job or at least, screw us the least. But I don't understand the moronic stupidity of our membership when it comes to the membership following the democrats blindly to their abomination. What did Ross Pero say?..."You are going to here a HUGE sucking sound taking our jobs down to Mexico!" Well, it happened and all I see around here is plant closing and people getting laid off.

Our country is run by corporations and we think we have some control over the process. I've got news for you, WRONG! And we keep voting for one of the two parties. Stupid is as stupid does...just like lemings running over the cliff. When will we wake up?

Oh yeah, and you think the electorial process is fair? One of our own got picked for a post in the electorial college and I can tell you with certainty, that if Bush wins that part of the state, Kerry will still get the electorial vote from this guy. Fair elections? Yeah, right...

Bring on the computer voting booths!

Rant off!




Well at least you are buying some of their crap.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:30:41 PM EST

You know, when this one lady got up and said that we needed to send Bush back to Texas, only half of the people clapped. Kerry's got some really problems with trying to get all of the union people behind him. I know I won't be voting for him. Ass!
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:38:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

Originally Posted By lippo:
I am so pissed tonight...calm, take a breathe...

We had a union meeting tonight. I was waiting for someone to stand up and spout out how the AWB is ending and we would all die because of it. I was going to stand up and yell "bull!" and then enlighten them on the reality of it all. This AWB crap has really got me going. I am just sick of all of the stupidity surrounding it and the ignorance of our membership.

So no one said anything about the AWB. But when certain leadership people got up and spoke about "anybody but Bush" and how we need to go to this Kerry rally in October that's over in flint, on an abandoned plant site, I got thinking about Nafta. It got me really pissed, so I spoke up and asked what was happening with our "fight" against Nafta. We signed some post cards a while ago asking to ban the America's trade agreement. So I got mixed up and thought we were asking for a repeal of Nafta. I said, "What's happening with Nafta? Are we fighting to get it repealed or at least so we are on a level playing field?". After the usual, "the republican's are responsible for this, the republican's are responsible for Nafta." I said, "It was our democratic senators that screwed us", "The DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONE'S THAT SCREWED US!". I thought that might awaken some people and I was pretty pissed. He said that it was the republican's that were responsible for it. So, I also told the guy that Clinton was the one that signed it and it was a democratic controlled senate. After a quick exit from this guy, they didn't want me to ask anymore. I am so sick of our union and the democrats selling us out.

That just pissed me off. If I have to go to some Kerry rally for the union, I am going to go with a Bush/Cheney sign. I grew up in a republican home, and consider myself an independent, cause I am sick of all of them. I vote for whom I expect to do the best job or at least, screw us the least. But I don't understand the moronic stupidity of our membership when it comes to the membership following the democrats blindly to their abomination. What did Ross Pero say?..."You are going to here a HUGE sucking sound taking our jobs down to Mexico!" Well, it happened and all I see around here is plant closing and people getting laid off.

Our country is run by corporations and we think we have some control over the process. I've got news for you, WRONG! And we keep voting for one of the two parties. Stupid is as stupid does...just like lemings running over the cliff. When will we wake up?

Oh yeah, and you think the electorial process is fair? One of our own got picked for a post in the electorial college and I can tell you with certainty, that if Bush wins that part of the state, Kerry will still get the electorial vote from this guy. Fair elections? Yeah, right...

Bring on the computer voting booths!

Rant off!




Well at least you are buying some of their crap.



?

Where I work, you have to join the union to work. A lot of places are like that around here.

I have seen some real good from our union and I have seen a lot of bad happen. But you are going to get that every time you have a collective. I support my brothers and sisters and am proud of the good I have seen. One example is how our local is trying to help the company keep jobs here and expand if possible, but I also hold a watchful eye too. There ARE some very, very good union people and there are some really stupid, bad, greedy and lazy people too. Just like every where else. But I also call it like it is.

Nafta and Clinton screwed us and that's the truth. Period!
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:40:51 PM EST
If I recall correctly, more Democrats in Congress than Republicans voted in favor of NAFTA.

Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:48:59 PM EST
Unions have a legitimate place in history, and in today's workplace. Unfortunately, many choose to surrender their individuality in the voting booth, and well as in the workplace (contractually speaking, that is)

The unions should not be blind parrots for the Dems.

I went round and round when I was local prez about the suppor t for Gore and the IL dem candidate for gov. They were pushing hard, and told me thay their support was based on work related issues, like collective bargaining and funding bills. I told the state association rep that most of my guys hunted and owned firearms, and they felt they could always get other jobs, but we couldn't get another 2nd amendment to the constitution.

Kerry voted for NAFTA...Kennedy voted for NAFTA... Hmmm.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:50:45 PM EST
You do know that you can get back the % of your union dues that is used for political campaining
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:54:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tango7:
Unions have a legitimate place in history, and in today's workplace. Unfortunately, many choose to surrender their individuality in the voting booth, and well as in the workplace (contractually speaking, that is)

The unions should not be blind parrots for the Dems.





I feel the same way. And good for you about sticking to your guns! Pun intended.

Link Posted: 9/12/2004 8:54:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2004 8:58:12 PM EST by sniper1az]
I belong to the CWA, Communication Workers of America. All they care about is their own selfish asses and all their cronies. They havent done SHIT for us. I havent had a raise in 5 years. The company sucks them at every turn. All they care about is the Gays, fudgepackers & lesbos!!! And all the fucks back Kerry & the Dems ,even when I point out that the tax breaks saved each one of us techs several thousand $$$$. The fucks just don't get it!!! The Republicans are their friends, not the Socialist Democrats!!! And the assholes keep asking me to give money to the Kerry campagin. So, I have to show them my Bush pin & then have fun withthe morons.

One guy I work with even turned a paid Kerry neighborhood canvaser into a Bush supporter. Just because we are union members doesn't mean we are useful idiots like our leadership.

Compaines that have unions generally deserve them.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 9:13:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By the:
If I recall correctly, more Democrats in Congress than Republicans voted in favor of NAFTA.




One of the few things the Dems did right...

Link Posted: 9/12/2004 9:30:09 PM EST
Union member here. Bush/Cheney supporter. I'm always knocking heads with the BA about politics. The dems fucked us in this state and the union still wants us to support these same damn fools. Fuck'em. I'm voting Bush and all my co-workers know it.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 9:32:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2004 9:32:23 PM EST by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By CRC:
Unions suck.




Give it a rest and go troll another thread.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 9:37:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2004 9:38:26 PM EST by Bucko]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
The Congress never voted on NAFTA, Clinton did it. Its called an executive agreement, I believe.



You are correct, Sir! href=ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo12889.html
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 9:41:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bucko:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
The Congress never voted on NAFTA, Clinton did it. Its called an executive agreement, I believe.



You are correct, Sir!

ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo12889.html



Where's my prize!
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 9:46:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Where's my prize!hr


Your prize lies in the satisfaction that you have vast knowledge of the political system which you can use to impress women and gain many sexual favors that, in time, will ultimately leave you feeling empty as you die alone realizing that you have never truly loved.......wait - what was I talking about?
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:30:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2004 10:35:11 AM EST by GunLvrPHD]
NAFTA passed with a Dem Congress and a Dem President. Remember when Al Gore debated Ross Perot on it? (Perot was anti NAFTA).

One of my grad school professors was one of the economists who had been working on NAFTA for 30 years; I think NAFTA is on balance a good thing.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:34:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By MisterFloppy:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Unions suck.




You stole my post.



I wanted that one, too.

But good on ya for standing up to them.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:41:15 AM EST
If I am not mistaken, Unions are incorporated, too.

Corporations are merely fictitious entities created for the collection of taxes. A corporation cannot run anything.

Guns don't kill; people kill people (with or without guns).

Corporations don't control the world; only people have the powerr to control or surrender control over themselves.

There is no such thing as a drunk driving accident; you have vehicular assault by a drunk.

The only control and power people have over you is what you give them.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:42:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 7:01:56 AM EST
I'm a union member too (IBEW) and my local has done a good job of bargaining over the years. My company would be really sticking it to us if they could, (they still try every chance they get) but the union keeps them in check and we've got an excellent pay and benefits package because of the union, so I don't necessarily think ALL unions suck.....but having said that, I do get tired of their unwavering support of the Democrats. I just debate it every time I hear a member spouting off about how the Republicans suck and the Dems are great. When it's all said and done, we go on about our business and they still wave their Dem flags and I just shake my head.....
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 7:23:39 AM EST
Hey, lippo:

Check out www.nrtw.org and www.nrtwc.org. Good info there.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 7:33:46 AM EST
Stand up and be proud...

They are sheep!

- BG
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:57:22 PM EST

Upate

I saw one of the union leadership today. He came up and shook my hand. He said that a bunch of people were bitching about me asking some questions and saying the Democrats screwed us. But he said I was right and there are a lot of them that think the same way I do. Just that I had the balls to say it.

We'll see what happens within the next month and what happens at the next meeting. But I am not going to let this go. I told the guy that I believe we need to take the people to task about their agenda and how they are sticking us in the back.

Rage, Rage against the night

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lighting they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 12:09:37 AM EST
Have you opted out of having your dues support things you dont support? You can. Pass the word. IIRC there are forms you have to sign and you may get some grief over it but what the hell.

S.O.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 12:16:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 12:39:09 AM EST
When you belong to a socialist union it is kind of pointless to bitch about socialism.


SGatr15
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 12:52:37 AM EST


Fellow Republicans Question President On Economy, War, Health Care, Jobs
By Mark Anderson
SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN—President George W. Bush (right) visited Niles and Kalamazoo May 3 in an effort to boost his voter support in Michigan’s 6th Congressional District. Many treated the president’s visit as something of unsurpassed significance, perhaps because they consider their towns to be forgotten hamlets where “kings” rarely tread.

These southwest Michigan stops during the Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection effort were coordinated by liberal Republican Rep. Fred Upton. With Michigan Secretary of State Terry Lynn Land, Upton co-chairs the statewide effort to reelect Bush and Cheney.

Since Al Gore managed to win Michigan in the tight 2000 presidential race, an all-out effort is being made to deliver Michigan, and particularly Upton’s district, to Bush in November.

“Michigan’s going to stay close until the last minute,” an Indiana University professor told WSBT radio in South Bend, Ind., on May 3.

This factor explains Bush’s strong focus on Michigan, a key state that also has candidates from several other parties on its November ballot, including presidential candidate Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party—a party that could receive “switchover” votes from any Republicans and independents who may become disenchanted with the dominant parties in these challenging times.

Notably, the U.S. Taxpayers, Libertarian, Green, Natural Law and Reform parties all have candidates, from the local level on up, on the Michigan ballot. But the dominant media simply follows Bush and Kerry, with nary a word about political alternatives.

With the media on its heels, the Bush campaign bus is swinging through Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and at least two other Midwestern “swing” states in the first two weeks of May. As evidenced by Bush’s Niles visit, jobs are a major issue, along with “winning the war on terror.”

In Niles, a city of 9,000, the high school was the preferred pulpit for the president to address teens, school officials, municipal officials, state legislators, local business owners, etc.

Bush was well received on what he called “my first bus tour of my last campaign.”

He called for tort reform, lower health care costs and the encouragement of medical savings accounts, an energy policy to supposedly make energy costs cheaper, hydrogen cars, increased use of nuclear power with the latest technology, and a continued commitment to “faith-based” charity, in which federal money is doled out to Christian ministries involved in helping the poor. He also introduced business owners, in pre-arranged testimonials, who say they’re making progress despite the cool economic climate. Bush predicted an economic recovery is imminent.

The banner behind him in Niles read: “America—safer, stronger, better.”

But outside the controlled confines of the president’s town-hall meetings in Niles, Kalamazoo and other stops, and beyond all the hoopla, there are issues and questions that create a less-than-comforting backdrop for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

There’s a war producing daily American casualties that include mothers who left infants at home when called to duty and were later killed in action. Meanwhile, in the occupation of Iraq, there’s sparse tangible evidence that this war actually will make the American people less vulnerable to terrorist attacks on their own soil, although Bush stated in Niles that shutting down the Taliban regime in Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq is said to have closed some Al Qaeda terrorist-training facilities in that distant nation.

Since 2000, Michigan has lost more jobs than any other state, which some analysts attribute to the North American Free Trade Agreement, a bi-partisan pact initially approved by George Bush the Elder, put into force by Bill Clinton and inherited by “Dubya.”

However, far from opposing or questioning NAFTA, Bush the Younger has expressed support for “NAFTA II,” otherwise known as the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would extend NAFTA across the entire Western Hemisphere, sparking predictions in some quarters of even more illegal immigration and job losses in the United States.

Longtime Republican and Bush supporter Denzel Stewart of South Bend, Ind., was having coffee the morning of Bush’s May 3 visit in Niles. With his ticket to the president’s appearance on the table, Stewart told AFP that the president’s proposed amnesty for illegal aliens already in the United States, and for future border-jumpers, is troubling to him.

“Most people are uninformed about what’s going on,” he said. “I think there ought to be accountability for [immigrants]—if they have to fill out paperwork, so be it.”

“Jack,“ a friend of Stewart’s, also a Bush fan, shares Stewart’s feelings about illegal immigration and dislikes Bush’s amnesty proposals that were announced early this year in cooperation with Mexican president Vicente Fox.

“Every one of them convicted of a felony ought to be shipped right back,” Jack said, speaking of illegal immigrants.

Job losses—at least 2 million nationally since Bush took office—have some Michigan Republicans at the local level worrying that their revenue sources will dry up, as wealth-creating, revenue-enhancing manufacturing and hi-tech jobs leave the country.

Earlier Labor Department predictions of 3.3 million jobs moving offshore by 2015 have been cited as too low in other studies.

In Van Buren County, one of six counties in Upton’s District, Marlene Peasley, an elected township clerk and longtime Republican, thinks the issues facing the country are too serious to justify unconditional GOP support of the president. She wonders if the stated deadline to disengage in Iraq and turn over control to local authorities is realistic. Bush firmly pledged during his Niles visit that sovereignty will be transferred to Iraq June 30.

“Are we really going to be able to turn this over, in all good conscience, by June 30?” she told AFP.

She’s concerned that the deadline might be wishful thinking and that turning over control prematurely might leave Iraq in a state of chaos. But she also doesn’t like the idea of an open-ended military venture with no end in sight.

“I hope it goes only a few months, not years, for the sake of lives on all sides,” she said.

Ms. Peasley added: “Maybe we need to re-look at NAFTA . . . I’m concerned that some jobs sent to Mexico [under NAFTA] ended up in China. What is it we’re not doing that makes it more profitable [for American companies] to set up factories in China, bring their products here and still make a profit? Why isn’t there more of a tariff put on those products?”

Longtime Republican Larry Clymer, a former Niles mayor who’s a county commissioner and is involved in emergency preparedness for Berrien County, said a $937,000 homeland security grant from the federal government, provided via the new Department of Homeland Security, has been handed to the county’s counter-terrorism/emergency preparedness operations.

If Clymer had the chance, he said he would ask Bush “to expand and expedite more of the same, for anti-terrorism and natural disasters.” Clymer told AFP that he wants the federal money but also wants improved federal cooperation in getting better training for local emergency personnel, less red tape, and the allowance of more input from local officials in the federal counter-terrorism apparatus.

When asked about the recently-declassified Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing—which showed the Bush administration was warned that Osama bin Laden’s henchmen were planning a U.S. attack, that the henchmen were already within U.S. borders and that hijacking airliners was a likely tactic—Clymer expressed uncertainty over who knew what and when. He did not want to indict Bush over the matter. Nor does he think Bush is solely to blame for job losses.

MISGUIDED

But Marcellus, Mich., resident Dennis James, a former Reagan Republican and a one-time active Pat Buchanan Republican, sees the current Republican Party, especially its Michigan members, as hopelessly misguided. James, a former Michigan chairman of the U.S. Taxpayers Party, supports that party mainly because he considers it to be the only one with the Constitution in mind.

James said that if he was still in the GOP tent, he’d find it tough to be supportive of a president who proposed blanket amnesty for illegal aliens, who is a globalist free-trader supportive of anti-job policies, and who launched a military attack without a constitutional declaration of war while apparently fibbing about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that were invoked to justify the war.

James also cited the socialistic expansion of federal involvement in public education—to a degree that exceeds even President Clinton’s educational proposals—when the Constitution doesn’t authorize the feds to assume that role in the first place.

From Niles, Bush went on to Kalamazoo and Sterling Heights, Mich., May 3 en route to Ohio on May 4, touting tax cuts, better education and community college job training as keys to economic recovery in America. There were few, if any, tough questions asked of Bush about trade policies and the exodus of manufacturing jobs along with the outsourcing of good-paying hi-tech jobs.

But, ultimately, James believes the American people need to educate themselves without relying on the dominant media, and look beyond the two dominant political parties if they sense that solutions are in short supply and empty rhetoric abounds.



Clinton inherited NAFTA from Bush, Sr.


Delegates/Alternates from both parties voiced general support for free trade policies. But, a majority of Democrats (53%) say they oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement while a majority of Republicans (81%) say they support the agreement. 70% of Republicans support expanding NAFTA to include the countries of South America while 57% of Democrats oppose such expansion. They was also strong Republican support (81%) for the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT). 61% of Democrats also support GATT.www.lincolninstitute.org/archives/newsrels/nr-del.htm


Those crazy Repubs, always supporting things !


Link Posted: 9/16/2004 12:58:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:
Have you opted out of having your dues support things you dont support? You can. Pass the word. IIRC there are forms you have to sign and you may get some grief over it but what the hell.

S.O.



I, a card carrying Teamster, looked for case law on this and could find none. There would be nothing more I would like than to not be giving Ketchup money.....

Links???
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 1:01:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 1:08:41 AM EST by wetidlerjr]

Originally Posted By Bucko:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
The Congress never voted on NAFTA, Clinton did it. Its called an executive agreement, I believe.



You are correct, Sir!

ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo12889.html



That url shows the executive order used to implement the agreement; NOT to approve it.


NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
"Those who will learn nothing from history are condemned to repeat it."

—George Santayana

FTAA advocates have described their plan as a broadening (adding more nations) and deepening (enlarging the scope and authority) of NAFTA – the so-called North American Free Trade Agreement. So let’s take a look at NAFTA.

The NAFTA agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada was signed by President George Bush (the senior) in 1992. A tough battle would ensue despite high level support in both major parties. But it still had to be approved by Congress. The following year, President Clinton mustered all of his political clout to push the measure through Congress. The office of Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY) circulated a list of some 37 special side deals and pork barrel projects the Clinton Administration used to buy passage of the trade agreement.



www.stoptheftaa.org/ftaa/nafta.html

Try Google.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 1:03:09 AM EST
There was some law about it or something not to long ago> I dont know the particulars as I dont work for a union and never needed it. IIRC they either had to hold back money you paid in that would have gone to a cause and use it only for collective bargining type activities or strike wages or refund it to you.

S.O.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 1:06:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:
There was some law about it or something not to long ago> I dont know the particulars as I dont work for a union and never needed it. IIRC they either had to hold back money you paid in that would have gone to a cause and use it only for collective bargining type activities or strike wages or refund it to you.

S.O.



You can have refunded to you that part of dues that goes for political purposes. Union dues cannot be donated to any candidate. That is why unions have PACs.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 1:11:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:
There was some law about it or something not to long ago> I dont know the particulars as I dont work for a union and never needed it. IIRC they either had to hold back money you paid in that would have gone to a cause and use it only for collective bargining type activities or strike wages or refund it to you.

S.O.



You can have refunded to you that part of dues that goes for political purposes. Union dues cannot be donated to any candidate. That is why unions have PACs.



Problem is trusting what they tell you it is spent on as I understand it they keep finaicial records tightly closed to prevent dues "leakage"

S.O.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 1:15:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:
There was some law about it or something not to long ago> I dont know the particulars as I dont work for a union and never needed it. IIRC they either had to hold back money you paid in that would have gone to a cause and use it only for collective bargining type activities or strike wages or refund it to you.

S.O.



You can have refunded to you that part of dues that goes for political purposes. Union dues cannot be donated to any candidate. That is why unions have PACs.



Problem is trusting what they tell you it is spent on as I understand it they keep finaicial records tightly closed to prevent dues "leakage"

S.O.



As a local union financial secretary, I can tell you that reports ( ones I make to the government) on local finances are, by law, open for public inspection. Also, I will show all current records to ANY local member that cares to see them.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 3:19:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:
Have you opted out of having your dues support things you dont support? You can. Pass the word. IIRC there are forms you have to sign and you may get some grief over it but what the hell.

S.O.



Yes look into this. Mr signed the forms, actually had to really make a stink about it because the union said they didn't think that was allowed. He was right and his dues do NOT go to the democratic party anymore. Several other union members followed suit along with him. Takes one ballsy guy to get the motion going.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 3:23:03 AM EST
I am for Bush

But he is wrong with this overtime thing

And a few other things, we need to let him know it somehow -- but not with the election
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 3:34:46 AM EST
I saw something on TV last night that Unions had contributed 96 million to Kerry's Campaign and that 40% of Union people vote Rebulican. There was some guys striking because none of there money went to Bush.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 4:50:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By the:
If I recall correctly, more Democrats in Congress than Republicans voted in favor of NAFTA.




One of the few things the Dems did right...





Yep. If you stand in the way of the free market you will either starve or get run over.
I look forward to the day when 70 million middle class Mexicans are buying US goods and services.



You'll feel the breeze of porcine wings flapping in your pants before that happens. The Mexican gov't will find some reason to erect new trade barriers around Mexico so that Mexicans will have to buy "Mexican only". And they'll probably tie it into immigration status of Mexican illegals in the USA or to the reannexation of Aztlan..... think I'm kidding? Just you wait.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 5:06:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 5:11:25 AM EST by mace]
Ann Coulter had a pretty good column on this subject:



IN THE PAST decade, the AFL-CIO has lobbied Congress on three major issues of any importance to union members:


(1) Oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement;
(2) Oppose permanent normal trade relations with China;
(3) Support drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


The unions lost every vote. Demonstrating his savvy political skills, the head of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, repeatedly throws the federation's support to political candidates who opposed labor on all three issues. So if you ever find yourself negotiating with Sweeney, make sure your opening bid is "nothing."

Sweeney's curious lose-at-any-price strategy has cost the unions everything. The only two Democratic presidential candidates to vote with the unions on any of these issues -- not all, but any -- were Representatives Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. Gephardt was out of the race after the first primary, and Kucinich can't break beyond the Aliens-Kidnapped-My-Mother crowd. (Dennis Kucinich did his tax return this week, and under "occupation" he wrote "Jay Leno punch line.")


There is only one candidate for president who didn't vote for NAFTA, didn't vote for trade with China and supported drilling in ANWR. That candidate is George Bush. He got into office by beating Al Gore -- the guy who was the head cheerleader for NAFTA. And unlike Dick Gephardt, Bush spends more time on the phone with Jimmy Hoffa than with Barbra Streisand. As president, Bush enraged free traders -- and our precious European "allies" -- by imposing tariffs on steel imports.


Sweeney has rewarded Bush by calling him a "horror" for organized labor. Apparently what "organized labor" really wants isn't good jobs at good wages, but ... abortion on demand! The AFL-CIO has vowed to devote massive union resources against Bush in the crucial swing states of Missouri, Ohio and Florida in the coming election.


Strictly following his strategy of selling union votes for nothing, the AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. John Kerry -- who voted for NAFTA, voted for trade with China and voted against drilling for oil in Alaska. Skilled laborers will have to wait another day for "fair trade" and high-paying jobs in Alaska, but at least Sweeney's candidate supports the issues that really matter to the average blue-collar worker: gay marriage, global warming treaties and hybrid cars.


Kerry denounces "Benedict Arnold" CEOs who ship "American jobs overseas." (Experts are still trying to figure out why Kerry didn't mention his service in Vietnam in that statement.) Sweeney seems to be satisfied with Kerry's explanation that -- like his vote for war with Iraq -- he voted for free trade, but then was shocked when free trade resulted.


Sen. John Edwards calls protection of U.S. jobs "a moral issue." Reminding audiences that he is the son of a mill worker almost as often as Kerry mentions that he served in Vietnam, Edwards says that "when we talk about trade, we are talking about values." As the son of a mill worker, he has seen with his "own eyes" what bad trade agreements "do to people." Of the evil trade agreements (supported by AFL-CIO's candidate) Edwards says: "Those trade deals were wrong. They cost us too many jobs and lowered our standards."


Except -- like Kerry -- Edwards also voted for those trade agreements every chance he got. In 2000, Edwards voted for trade with China. Having seen with his "own eyes" what happens "when the mill shuts down," Edwards voted to shut down a few more mills. Edwards also voted his conscience to oppose drilling in Alaska. Whenever Edwards' conscience speaks to him, it sounds remarkably like Barbra Streisand.


Edwards' only fig leaf for claiming he backs labor is a hypothetical vote he never actually cast. He bravely claims he would have voted against NAFTA -- if only he had been in the Senate when it came up for a vote.


That's an interesting moral calculus. Edwards didn't mind forcing American workers to compete with a billion Chinese -- famously including child workers and slave laborers. But trade with Canada and Mexico he says would have offended his delicate moral sensibilities.


In his stump speech, Edwards implies he ran against Jesse Helms by saying he beat "the Jesse Helms machine" to win his Senate seat. It was a real David and Goliath match-up -- pitting a poor, beleaguered multimillionaire trial lawyer against an elderly senator of humble means. But the mere mention of Helms' name invariably elicits sneers from the party of the little guy.


Helms voted with the AFL-CIO on all three big labor issues -- against NAFTA, against trade with China and for half a million good jobs in Alaska. Indeed, Helms was one of the main lobbyists against trade with China. The guy Edwards actually beat, Lauch Faircloth, was in the Senate for only one of these votes. The AFL-CIO didn't have to take Faircloth's word on how he might have voted on NAFTA: He voted against it. The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards and opposed Faircloth and Helms.


It's not particularly surprising that the party of trial lawyers, environmentalists and Hollywood actresses keeps voting against blue collar workers. What's strange is that the AFL-CIO keeps voting against blue-collar workers, too.

(edited to fix article)
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 5:15:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By akethan:
I saw something on TV last night that Unions had contributed 96 million to Kerry's Campaign and that 40% of Union people vote Rebulican. There was some guys striking because none of there money went to Bush.



From what I have read, FDR made some kind of deal with the Unions way back when. The democrats would support the unions with their congressional votes, but the unions would get the vote out for the democrats. That's why in the union leadership, the democrats can do no wrong, that's my understanding anyway. Coruption is as coruption does.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 7:42:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 7:45:50 AM EST by Bucko]

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:
That url shows the executive order used to implement the agreement; NOT to approve it.



Executive Orders are independent of congressional action - it stands on it's own.

"implement" and "approve" are not opposites - Clinton made NAFTA happen.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 7:48:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:
I am for Bush

But he is wrong with this overtime thing

And a few other things, we need to let him know it somehow -- but not with the election



The House has already voted to strike the new overtime rules. Happened on 9/10/04.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:35:30 AM EST
CavVet: If you are contributing to COPE you can sign a card to have that stopped. I'd be interested in getting my part of CWA's sKerry's contributions back too.

We had our new DDR at a meeting and the first thing we told him was not to bring any Democratic party stickers, buttons, or other material to any of our meetings. So far he has complied. We had several members leave the union after Morton Barr's(CWA national president) comments on gay rights and gun control.

Unions are a a double edged sword. Our pay and benifits wouldnt be anywhere near what they are now without them but damn their politics suck at times.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:48:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:
Have you opted out of having your dues support things you dont support? You can. Pass the word. IIRC there are forms you have to sign and you may get some grief over it but what the hell.

S.O.



I, a card carrying Teamster, looked for case law on this and could find none. There would be nothing more I would like than to not be giving Ketchup money.....

Links???



It's called the Beck decision. It's toothless, though, because unions lie on their financial forms about where the cash goes. For example, prior to Beck, one union listed "political activity" on their forms with a large dollar amount . . . after Beck, that category disappeared, but a new category appeared called "community education" wit a similar dollar amount. I can't remember which union, it was in Wash. State, though. I'll see if I can find the info. In the meantime, check out www.nrtw.org.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 11:44:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bucko:

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:
That url shows the executive order used to implement the agreement; NOT to approve it.



Executive Orders are independent of congressional action - it stands on it's own.

"implement" and "approve" are not opposites - Clinton made NAFTA happen.



An Executive Order cannot be issued unless it is based in the facts of LAW.

Every single Executive Order in the public record references the appropriate section of the US Code that grants the President the authority to issue the Order in the first place.

The President cannot make NAFTA happen by EO. It's simply non-sensical and would not stand one second of judicial review (court challenge).

Here's how it goes:

President signs treaty with head of state of another country. Treaty is still not law binding on the United States.

Treaty is submitted to the Senate for ratification. Treaty is ratified (approved) by 2/3 of the Senate, and it becomes the law of the land. Treaty is not ratified, and it hangs in limbo forever, not binding on the United States.

President issues Executive Order (s) to his Cabinet agencies to implement regulations to enforce the law (treaty).

Why is knowledge of how our Government works so subject to tinfoil hat paranoia?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top