A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Don't really know about Foxfire's view on unions, however the contemporary issue here is the program of American unions, actively supported by the Democrats in their employ, to outlaw current legal requirements for a secret ballot by workers voting on unionization of employees.

The unions want an informal canvassing of workers, with data taken by intermediaries and no requirement for original individual votes, to be the basis for forced unionization of all employees at any site. They want the results of such a "majority vote" to be the basis for the compulsory unionization of all employees, volunteers or not, and the compulsory deduction of union dues from their wages by employers.

Further they want the lifting of restrictions on the use of union funds for political purposes. Current law requires the union leadership to disclose its contributions to its members and to enable members to withold that portion of their assessed dues if they so choose. The law is not widely enforced, mostly a result of Democrat opposition.

Unionism is on a steep decline in America. Interestingly the largest union group today is that for government employees. An odd outcome given the protections already built in to civil service employment. It is in fact just a fund raising scam for the Democrat party.

0 Replies

Exactly.

As you say---in decline--but they still get their political jabs in. Pretty low one against Rudy--but...politics.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

As you say---in decline--but they still get their political jabs in. Pretty low one against Rudy--but...politics.

So you dont think they should have taken more time to recover the remains of firefighters who died on 9/11?

Why not?

I mean, its not like they actually did anything much with the place for years after..

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Foxfyre said:

"Both Clinton and Obama are on the record as supporting the unions in their efforts to make it easier for workers to join unions against the wishes of their employers."

You say that protecting the right to join unions is bad?

Truly?

Nope. If you go back and really read what I said, both are on the record as supporting unions, and both are supporting a measure that would deny the employers the right to have their employees cast a secret ballot for or against unionization before a union would be recognized. Why do you suppose the unions would be trying to force unsecret ballots? Would it be so that nobody would dare vote no in case the vote was to unionize? And those voting no could then be singled out for 'punishment' on down the line?

There is no way our President will allow this, maybe one of the crappiest pieces of legislation the Democrats have come up with yet, to stand. But Obama is right. Elect a Democrat president in 2008, and the workers likely lose their right to a secret ballot.

You say that employers ought to have the right to say whether workers join unions or not?

Really?

If that is not what you meant, kindly say EXACTLY what you ARE saying.

0 Replies

I am going to read several views on what happened before I decide--but I've watched national politics long enough to know that whether or not there is any credence to this story--it was a political hit by a shady arm of the Democrat party.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Foxfyre said:

"Both Clinton and Obama are on the record as supporting the unions in their efforts to make it easier for workers to join unions against the wishes of their employers."

You say that protecting the right to join unions is bad?

Truly?

You say that employers ought to have the right to say whether workers join unions or not?

Really?

If that is not what you meant, kindly say EXACTLY what you ARE saying.

Okay, due to excessive white space Smile

I botched my last response to Dlowan.

Here's what I intended to say:
Nope. If you go back and really read what I said, both are on the record as supporting unions, and both are supporting a measure that would deny the employers the right to have their employees cast a secret ballot for or against unionization before a union would be recognized. Why do you suppose the unions would be trying to force unsecret ballots? Would it be so that nobody would dare vote no in case the vote was to unionize? And those voting no could then be singled out for 'punishment' on down the line?

There is no way our President will allow this, maybe one of the crappiest pieces of legislation the Democrats have come up with yet, to stand. But Obama is right. Elect a Democrat president in 2008, and the workers likely lose their right to a secret ballot.

I am all for workers being able to organize if they want to. Usually any company that gets a union in a right to work state deserves that union. But I also support the right of workers to not be forced to unionize when they think their employer is okay too.

But the Democrats are wanting to greatly empower the unions while taking away power from both the workers and the employers.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Large unions are typically anti-GOP, anti-conservative, and anti free trade. Large unions also speak from the leadership bureauocracy, oppose right to work laws, and support candidates who support unions. They shamelessly use union dues to support pro-union leadership candidates, as often than not against the convictions of the majority of the workers. The unions can also make it quite difficult for workers who presume to openly oppose the leadership.

Both Clinton and Obama are on the record as supporting the unions in their efforts to make it easier for workers to join unions against the wishes of their employers. Giuliani is pro business.

This is only the first volley of what the unons will probably be launching against Giuliani, and they probably won't care whether they distort or exaggerate the truth when they do it.

So you basically have nothing to say about what it is they're actually complaining about? That Giuliani prematurely scaled down the effort to recover the remains of firefighters who perished? Just - well, unions are pro-Democratic, so I dont even have to consider what they're saying?

Meanwhile, there is a problem with your characterisation of this complaint as just "the first volley" in the upcoming presidential race, solely meant to take a promising GOP contender down. It is this: as the article already pointed out, in the bit that we both quoted: "The former mayor and the union have feuded for years over his policies in the aftermath of the attacks."

This is not a complaint that the firefighters' union has suddenly 'discovered' only now that Giuliani goes for the presidency. They've been angry about it for years, and have feuded with Giuliani about it from those actual post-9/11 days, when he was not standing in any election.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I am going to read several views on what happened before I decide

Thats always good - no reason to go on one source alone.

I usually do that before, rather than after concluding that something is a "low blow", though ;-)

Lash wrote:

it was a political hit by a shady arm of the Democrat party.

What makes the firefighters union "a shady arm" of the Dem party? I mean, what is shady about the firefighters union? Something specific about them? Or are unions per definition shady?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Large unions are typically anti-GOP, anti-conservative, and anti free trade. Large unions also speak from the leadership bureauocracy, oppose right to work laws, and support candidates who support unions. They shamelessly use union dues to support pro-union leadership candidates, as often than not against the convictions of the majority of the workers. The unions can also make it quite difficult for workers who presume to openly oppose the leadership.

Both Clinton and Obama are on the record as supporting the unions in their efforts to make it easier for workers to join unions against the wishes of their employers. Giuliani is pro business.

This is only the first volley of what the unons will probably be launching against Giuliani, and they probably won't care whether they distort or exaggerate the truth when they do it.

So you basically have nothing to say about what it is they're actually complaining about? That Giuliani prematurely scaled down the effort to recover the remains of firefighters who perished? Just - well, unions are pro-Democratic, so I dont even have to consider what they're saying?

Meanwhile, there is a problem with your characterisation of this complaint as just "the first volley" in the upcoming presidential race, solely meant to take a promising GOP contender down. It is this: as the article already pointed out, in the bit that we both quoted: "The former mayor and the union have feuded for years over his policies in the aftermath of the attacks."

This is not a complaint that the firefighters' union has suddenly 'discovered' only now that Giuliani goes for the presidency. They've been angry about it for years, and have feuded with Giuliani about it from those actual post-9/11 days, when he was not standing in any election.

So you didn't read what I wrote? I don't believe I commented on Giuliani or the NY firemen at all and I wasn't talking about that other than that any complaint against a Republican by any union has to be viewed with at least some suspicion of political motives. And I intended nothing more than that with my comment.

I also would recommend getting the feelings of the firemen from the firemen rather than the union bosses. You'll likely get a far more accurate picture.

0 Replies

Sorta like the Vietnam Swift Boat Vets for Truth.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So you didn't read what I wrote? I don't believe I commented on Giuliani or the NY firemen at all and I wasn't talking about that other than that any complaint against a Republican by any union has to be viewed with at least some suspicion of political motives.

Right. Like I wrote: "So you basically have nothing to say about what it is they're actually complaining about? That Giuliani prematurely scaled down the effort to recover the remains of firefighters who perished? Just - well, unions are pro-Democratic, so I dont even have to consider what they're saying?"

Seems about right.

0 Replies

Quote:

Fred Thompson Urged to Make '08 Run

One Hollywood actor, Ronald Reagan, served as president for eight years. So why not an actor who plays a district attorney on TV? Fred Thompson, the character Arthur Branch on NBC's drama "Law & Order," is being urged to pursue the GOP nomination by several Tennessee Republicans who also have been trying to drum up support for a candidacy.

Former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker has been talking to senators. Rep. Zach Wamp has been in touch with colleagues in the House.

"It's something I hope happens," Wamp said Friday. "We need that kind of star quality, but most importantly we need his strength and resolve."

Wamp said he asked Thompson to consider running immediately after former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, another Tennessee Republican, decided not to run for president late last year.

"I think he has an open mind, and he sees the need," Wamp said.

Thompson, 64, the minority counsel in the Watergate investigation, was elected to the Senate in 1994 to fill the unexpired term of Vice President Al Gore. He was chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and left the Senate in 2003 to resume his acting career.

Thompson has acted in films such as "The Hunt for Red October," "Cape Fear," and "In the Line of Fire."

He has had no comment about a possible White House bid.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So you didn't read what I wrote? I don't believe I commented on Giuliani or the NY firemen at all and I wasn't talking about that other than that any complaint against a Republican by any union has to be viewed with at least some suspicion of political motives.

Right. Like I wrote: "So you basically have nothing to say about what it is they're actually complaining about? That Giuliani prematurely scaled down the effort to recover the remains of firefighters who perished? Just - well, unions are pro-Democratic, so I dont even have to consider what they're saying?"

Seems about right.

I didn't say I had nothing to say about the firefighters who perished. I didn't say anything about the firefighters who perished but that doesn't mean I have nothing to say.

I am saying that the union bosses do not necesarily speak for the firemen. The union bosses speak for the union bosses.

I'm sure that's a subtle distinction that you will find yet another reason to be snotty about, but we really are discussing two separate things here.

0 Replies

Outrageous / laughable conservative quote from the day

Newt Gingrich, as you'll all know now, admitted that he had an extramarital affair even as he was pushing the judicial case against Clinton over Monica. But today's quote is not Gingrich's.

It's Jerry Falwell's. In an admittedly less than overwhelming endorsement, Falwell said, "If [Gingrich] is the candidate against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, he'll have my vote." But he also declared that Gingrich has his confidence, and that he has fully accepted Gingrich's "open confession of sin", and when doing so, Falwell described the situation at hand as follows:

Quote:

The whole world knew that Newt had been through two divorces. That's what the Democrats and the pundits call his baggage. [..]

If he was a Democrat like Bill Clinton, this would not be such a big issue. Nobody would give a flip.

Rrrightt... Laughing

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So you didn't read what I wrote? I don't believe I commented on Giuliani or the NY firemen at all

You're darn right you didn't. And how predictable.

Foxfyre wrote:

and I wasn't talking about that other than that any complaint against a Republican by any union has to be viewed with at least some suspicion of political motives. And I intended nothing more than that with my comment.

And we have come to expect no post from you that has no political motives, either.

The union leaders were elected by those brave firefighters who laid down their lives trying to save others, and I trust their judgment on the situation about a thousand times more than I trust yours.

Union members elect people to represent them. When their employers-the same employers who sent these loyal, dedicated people in to save the people in the towers-do not make a decent effort to recover their bodies for their families' sake, I damn well expect the union leaders to speak up about it. And they have.

The leaders are there to stick up for their men and their families. Good for them.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So you didn't read what I wrote? I don't believe I commented on Giuliani or the NY firemen at all

You're darn right you didn't. And how predictable.

Foxfyre wrote:
and I wasn't talking about that other than that any complaint against a Republican by any union has to be viewed with at least some suspicion of political motives. And I intended nothing more than that with my comment.

And we have come to expect no post from you that has no political motives, either.

The union leaders were elected by those brave firefighters who laid down their lives trying to save others, and I trust their judgment on the situation about a thousand times more than I trust yours.

Union members elect people to represent them. When their employers-the same employers who sent these loyal, dedicated people in to save the people in the towers-do not make a decent effort to recover their bodies for their families' sake, I damn well expect the union leaders to speak up about it. And they have.

The leaders are there to stick up for their men and their families. Good for them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Having belonged to unions in the past--it was required, not a matter of choice--I can assure you the union did not speak for me nor did I choose the leadership....

Please tell us the name of this union you belonged to which did not hold elections for the leaders. I certainly have not come across one-enlighten us.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Having belonged to unions in the past--it was required, not a matter of choice--I can assure you the union did not speak for me nor did I choose the leadership....

Please tell us the name of this union you belonged to which did not hold elections for the leaders. I certainly have not come across one-enlighten us.

(I see you have found another gripe to be hypersensitive about.) 20 years ago I paid Union Dues to the Teamsters and I can assure you I would have preferred to keep the dough. I was neither satisfied with their negotiation at the local store, nor thought much of anything else they were doing with the dough (to the extent I even knew what that may be). If your silly contentions above had any merit; we could then assume George Bush speaks for you... with your best interest at heart ( Laughing

).

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Having belonged to unions in the past--it was required, not a matter of choice--I can assure you the union did not speak for me nor did I choose the leadership....

Please tell us the name of this union you belonged to which did not hold elections for the leaders. I certainly have not come across one-enlighten us.

Please tell me a name of a union that hands a ballot to every new hiree or even tells new hirees who the union bosses are. I have worked for two unionized organizations in which you joined the union when hired or you didn't work. They took my money for dues, but there were no elections for the entire period I worked for either of them.

Do you treat people in real life the way you treat people you disagree with here? If so, do you ever get tired of being you?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have worked for two unionized organizations in which you joined the union when hired or you didn't work. They took my money for dues, but there were no elections for the entire period I worked for either of them.

Just got off the phone with the Department of Labor. For unions covered by the Landrum Griffin Act, which is almost all private sector unions, the elections for the local leaders must occur every three years, for the national leadership every five years. If you worked at those union places less than three years then yes, you would not have gotten the chance to vote. But that is like moving to a town one year, moving out of town two years later, then complaining the town is undemocratic because you had to pay property taxes for the time you were there but never ONCE got to vote for Mayor or town representatives. Well guess what-the Mayor and town representatives have a four year term.

The union leaders for those firemen were elected to represent the interests of the firefighters who risked and lost their lives in the WTC attack, and the families who lost them. I trust their judgment on the situation about a thousand times more than I trust yours.

Any union leader who does not stick up for the rights and memories of his workers, especially those who have perished in the line of duty, is one pathetic excuse for a union leader. The readers of this thread may please note how the conservatives here run the leaders down for doing what they leaders SHOULD be doing-and the deceptive means the conservatives employ to do so.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know