SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mr. Whist who wrote (121144)1/6/2001 3:12:10 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 769667
 
individual union members working as a campaign team (as the autoworkers did on Nov. 7 with the blessing of Ford and GM

yep, I see where auto sales are down already(too damn expensive because of unions)....but what the hey...you got a day off to round up bums and entice them with ciggys to vote ...thats somethin at least.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (121144)1/6/2001 3:13:47 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Respond to of 769667
 
It's over now. Bush is officially elected. The votes have been counted in joint session. The Black Caucus tried to derail the train but were unsuccessful.

Oh, I forgot. It's not over. The lefties say the investigations start now, followed by the impeachment.

If any lefties believe that, I'll bet them $1000 legal US currency that that last part (impeachment) is wrong.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (121144)1/6/2001 3:13:53 PM
From: FastC6  Respond to of 769667
 
Hi flapper, make no mistake about it, this administration is anti-union mentality and will see to it that the unions are weakened. Here is a free lesson to you: there would be no "common working man" without the Republican who employs them.

. .



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (121144)1/6/2001 4:54:52 PM
From: Tom Clarke  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
The AFL-CIO needs to dump Sweeney. The guy is a throwback, he would have been happy in the IWW.

You guys should get people like the heroic Lane Kirkland back in your leadership.

the strength and beauty lies in individual union members working as a campaign team

I had several up close and personal encounters with the charming members from Boston when I volunteered in New Hampshire in 96. They were loud mouthed goons who enjoyed intimidating people.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (121144)1/6/2001 6:49:21 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769667
 
It was the rise of Unions that created the middle class. A strong middle class means there is alot more money in the hands of alot more people who go out and spend it on goods and services.........which in turn dumps MORE money into the hands of business owners and shareholders.

Without the strong middle class there are alot FEWER people with money to spend. Corporations won't have as many people to buy their products so they will also turn to the gov't for help. As an example: The gas and electric companies in Ca. were de-regulated ( less gov't control for those of you who can't point your finger on the guilty party ). Listen to the news for the results of that de-regulation!! Bush will probably bail them out with our money!!!!! Socialized expense and privatized profit......that should be the Republican slogan. Papa Bush bailed out the S& L's with our money while his son profited!!!!!!!!

There are two kinds of rich business owners.
1. The kind that thinks the common man would be living in a cave if it wasn't for people like him!
2. The kind that feels his employees are a valuable asset and thinks that they have contributed strongly to his success so he treats them with generosity.

Has anyone ever heard the saying," A company that ends up with it's employees unionized usually deserves it!!" If employees are treated fairly they don't need to unionize.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (121144)1/6/2001 7:32:00 PM
From: Ish  Respond to of 769667
 
<<Actually, Chuck, the Chavez appointment might be a blessing in disguise to organized labor for the following reason:>>

Chavez will work to get more states to be right to work. Are you against a person's right to work?