Public Employees Support Union Workers-By Driving Foreign Cars?

Tagged:  

http://toledoblade.com/Automotive/2011/03/06/When-it-comes-to-cars-solid...

Actually, I've seen this a lot of times. The first one was when Geraldine Ferraro, the other female VP candidate, in Mondales' campaign, was caught owning three foreign cars in 1984. I'm sure if someone checked out the rallies in the various states, one would see the protesters, i.e., the really "good union people", are driving them too. I wonder what these folks have against the UAW? Do they accept support from the UAW? I'll bet they do, and all they can get, IMO.

No votes yet

Look at the deputy getting into her foreign car. She is a UAW member, all the deputies, corrections officers, dispatchers and clerks are. Most of them drive foreign cars.

The deputy was getting into the passenger seat, I would assume she was getting a ride. Who rides shotgun in their own car?

February 23, 2009 http://detnews.com/article/20090223/AUTO01/902230327

Auto team drives imports

Fed task force has few new U.S. cars

DAVID SHEPARDSON
Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The vehicles owned by the Obama administration's auto team could reflect one reason why Detroit's Big Three automakers are in trouble: The list includes few new American cars.

Among the eight members named Friday to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and the 10 senior policy aides who will assist them in their work, two own American models. Add the Treasury Department's special adviser to the task force and the total jumps to three.

The Detroit News reviewed public records to discover what many of the task force and staff members drove, but information was not available on all of the officials, and records for some states were not complete.

At least two task force members don't own a car, and there are still two open slots on the 10-member panel that will be filled by the secretaries of labor and commerce, who have not yet been appointed.

Steve Rattner, the managing partner of a $6 billion New York hedge fund who will lead the Treasury Department's auto efforts, has three imports and one domestic vehicle.

He owns a 2008 Lexus LS 460 sedan, a 2007 Audi S4 convertible, a 2006 Mercedes-Benz R350 sport-utility vehicle and a 2005 Lincoln Town Car, according to public records.

The co-chairs of the task force -- Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and White House National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers -- both own foreign automobiles.

Geithner owns a 2008 Acura TSX, registered in New York. He once owned a 1999 Honda Accord and a 2002 Acura MDX, according to public records.

Geithner is the president's designee for purposes of enforcing loan agreements with GM and Chrysler and must approve or reject any proposed transactions by either company that would cost $100 million or more.

His maternal grandfather, Charles Moore, was a vice president at Ford Motor Co. from 1952-63, according to Peter Geithner, the secretary's father. But Geithner wasn't very interested in cars growing up -- in part because he graduated from high school in Asia, his father said.

Summers owns a 1995 Mazda Protege that's registered in Massachusetts. He previously owned a 1996 Ford Taurus GL.

What other task force members drive:

Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag owns a 2008 Honda Odyssey and a 2004 Volvo S60. He previously owned a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee and 1982 Datsun.

Carol Browner, the White House climate czar, said earlier this month at the Washington Auto Show that she doesn't own an automobile. Public records show she once owned a 1999 Saab 9-5 SE.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu doesn't own a car, his wife, Jean Fetter, said in a telephone interview on Sunday. Cabinet officials are typically transported to and from work by security officials in government vehicles.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson owns a 2008 Toyota Prius and a Honda Odyssey minivan, she said Sunday. "It's great," she said of her Prius.

Vehicle information was not available for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood or Christine Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Here's what task force policy aides drive:

Austan Goolsbee, staff director and chief economist for the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board, owns a 2004 Toyota Highlander.

Joan DeBoer, the chief of staff to LaHood, said in an interview Sunday she drives a 2008 Lexus RX 350. She doesn't consider herself "a car buff" and views her car as a way to get around town.

Heather Zichal, deputy director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, owns a Volvo C30, according to public records and officials.

Gene Sperling, counsel to the Treasury Secretary, owns a 2003 Lincoln LS, and previously owned a 1993 Saturn SL2.

Edward B. Montgomery, senior adviser to the Labor Department, owns a 1991 Harley-Davidson and previously owned a 1990 Ford Taurus L station wagon, public records show.

Lisa Heinzerlingra, senior climate policy counsel to the head of the EPA, owns a 1998 Subaru Legacy Outback station wagon, according to her husband.

Diana Farrell, the deputy National Economic Council director, doesn't own a vehicle. Her husband, Scott Pearson, owns a 1985 Peugeot 505 S.

Dan Utech, senior adviser to the Energy Secretary, owns a 2003 Mini Cooper S two-door hatchback.

Rick Wade, a senior adviser at the Commerce Department, owns a 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier and previously owned a 1998 Toyota Corolla.

Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's chief economist, owns a 2005 Honda Odyssey.

The White House declined to comment.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

There's no excuse for anyone ever, under any circumstance, driving a foreign vehicle in this country, let alone this town. I wouldn't be caught dead even riding in one.

Except for the freedom of choice thing...

The point here is the blatent hipocrisy of UNION people buying NON union made vehicles after litterally DECADES of finger waging and brow beating...

Flashback:

Pete Gerken forced to return wifes christmass give of a rice burner!

http://swampbubbles.com/blogs/wolfman/20100106/gerken-gives-back-luxury-...

DOH!

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

So you're saying you would be caught dead in an "American made" car.

Judging by the safety record of them you'll probably get your wish. Why don't you buy an old Pinto and drive an obstacle course in reverse?

MikeyA

Mad at me? See my post to Jim, then jump in a foreign car and drive it to hell.

Why should I you're the one on here suggesting that people shouldn't have basic consumer rights.

No I'm not mad at you at all. People have rights and one of those is the right to be stupid. If you want to put blind trust into the companies who can't build cars people want then please do. However don't suggest that others should be forced to make your dumb decisions.

MikeyA

So it's great to buy foreign cars. Well, I guess it does fit your agenda...after all, you can always bame the shitty economy on union workers. Sorry, Mikey, you just stepped in it waist deep.

It's not the consumer's fault. It's the car companies and the unions. The Car Companies have given way to the unions for too many years that finally when the cars they were building went out of favor for the most of the buyers they were faced with bankruptcy.

Other than government there is not an industry that is wholly unionized that isn't struggling.

Yet there are plenty of industries that are not unionized that are doing just fine. You neglect this fact because it does not fit into YOUR agenda.

We are no longer in an Industrial age economy where unions are a natural phenomenon. We are in an Information age economy where a union where a union does only to inhibit.

MikeyA

"...unions are a natural phenomenon."

You need to ask yourself this question: What is it that made unions a "natural" phenomenon?

"We are no longer in an Industrial age economy..."

Oh, and I can hardly wait for our "Information age economy" to take over building roads, bridges, etc., not to mention all those cars and everything else that needs to be manufactured. But this might be a better idea. We could hire illegals - we all know they'll work for nothing. That oughta get rid of several hundred thousand expensive, worthless American laborers. Better yet, why don't we just outright fire the whole damn useless bunch of 'em and kick their butts into the street. That way we can all sit on our collective asses and talk about the information age economy and wonder how Mexamerica will figure out where to get the money to pay for all the cheap Chinese junk we'll be importing since we can't afford to buy our own products.

Yep...welcome to your socialist utopia....cheer up...this is what Libtards WANT....amnesty, chinese cars, HIGH energy prices, HIGH taxes and LONG unemployment lines...

Dont cry about it now....this is all by design fucktard...

"Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."

Saul Alinksy

------------------------------------------------------

For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 25, 2007

CHICAGO -- The job offer to "Miss Hillary Rodham, Wellesley College" was dated Oct. 25, 1968, and signed by Saul D. Alinsky, the charismatic community organizer who believed that the urban poor could become their own best advocates in a world that largely ignored them.

Alinsky thought highly of 21-year-old Rodham, a student government president who grew up in the Chicago suburbs. She was in the midst of a year-long analysis of Alinsky's aggressive mobilizing tactics, and he was searching for "competent political literates" to move to Chicago to build grass-roots organizations.

Seventeen years later, another young honor student was offered a job as an organizer in Chicago. By then, Alinsky had died, but a group of his disciples hired Barack Obama, a 23-year-old Columbia University graduate, to organize black residents on the South Side, while learning and applying Alinsky's philosophy of street-level democracy. The recruiter called the $13,000-a-year job "very romantic, until you do it."

Today, as Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton face off for the Democratic presidential nomination, their common connection to Alinsky is one of the striking aspects of their biographies. Obama embraced many of Alinsky's tactics and recently said his years as an organizer gave him the best education of his life. Clinton's interest was more intellectual -- she turned down the job offer -- and she has said little about Alinsky since their association became a favorite subject of conservative critics during her husband's presidency.

Alinsky was a bluff iconoclast who concluded that electoral politics offered few solutions to the have-nots marooned in working-class slums. His approach to social justice relied on generating conflict to mobilize the dispossessed. Power flowed up, he said, and neighborhood leaders who could generate outside pressure on the system were more likely to produce effective change than the lofty lever-pullers operating on the inside.

Both Obama and Clinton admired Alinsky's appeal for small-d democracy but came to believe that social progress is best achieved by working within the political system, and on a national scale.

Both went to law school, turned to a mix of courthouse and community remedies, and eventually moved into electoral politics.

Associates describe the candidates as combining streaks of idealism with a realistic appreciation of the politically possible, a mix the goal-oriented Alinsky would have recognized in himself. Like Alinsky, they fashioned political strategies defined more by coalitions and compromise than by the flashy but often hollow rhetorical pyrotechnics that Clinton, in her Wellesley honors thesis, called "the luxury of symbolic suicide."

Neither candidate would agree to be interviewed about Alinsky. But Marian Wright Edelman, the Children's Defense Fund leader, who knows Obama, worked closely with Clinton and spoke at Alinsky's funeral, said the organizer's allure was formidable, particularly in the energized 1960s.

"He was brilliant. He was working for underdogs. He was trying to empower communities, which we still need to do. He spoke plainly. He had his outrageous side, but he also had his pragmatic side," Edelman said. "Both Hillary and Barack reflect that understanding of community-organizing strategy. Both just know how to leverage power."

A Colorful Thesis Subject

Born in 1909 and bred in the politicized precincts of Chicago, Alinsky was a lifelong student of the dynamics of power who concluded that the city's famed Democratic machine remained unmoved unless pushed.

Alinsky took action with an organizing campaign in 1939 in Back of the Yards, the desperate Chicago meatpacking district depicted in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Fashioning an unlikely alliance of unions, the Catholic church and others to win concessions from industry and government, he said organizers must listen to people's desires, then find leaders to carry the fight.

An organizer must "fan the latent hostilities," he wrote in his 1946 handbook "Reveille for Radicals," and "he must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them."

A master of the attention-getting rhetorical flourish, Alinsky once pressed Eastman Kodak to hire more black workers, saying the only thing the company had done about race was introduce color film. Yet he practiced "a method that sounds more radical than it actually was," said Georgetown University historian Michael Kazin, who called Alinsky "a tactician more than he was an ideologist."

Alinsky, unimpressed by dogma, believed in coalitions linked by clear-eyed calculations of self-interest. He focused on concrete local issues: bus routes, public housing, jobs. To him, the fashionable cry of the 1960s that power comes from the barrel of a gun was "absurd." To mark his differences with the bomb-throwers, he subtitled his second book "A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals."

The calamitous events of that decade turned Clinton away from the GOP of her Park Ridge, Ill., youth. Arriving at Wellesley, she became president of the Young Republicans, but she soon drifted left. She said that 1968, the year she met Alinsky in Chicago, was a watershed in her "personal and political evolution," marked by the escalation of the Vietnam War and the killings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

When she returned for her senior year that September, Clinton decided to write a thesis on the war on poverty. Her adviser suggested Alinsky. She called her 92-page work, after a line in a T.S. Eliot poem, " 'There Is Only the Fight . . . ': An Analysis of the Alinsky Model."

Much of Alinsky's agenda, she wrote after interviewing him three times, "does not sound 'radical.' " Even his tactics, she concluded, were often "non-radical, even 'anti-radical.' His are the words used in our schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers. The difference is that Alinsky really believes in them and recognizes the necessity of changing the present structures of our lives in order to realize them."

Among examples of Alinsky's methods, Clinton cited the 1961 decision to send 2,000 black Woodlawn community residents downtown en masse to register to vote. She mentioned activists picketing the suburban homes of slumlords and a mission to dump garbage outside the sanitation commission.

"In many cases," Clinton wrote, "the abrasive tactics paid off with the cancellation of double shifts in the schools, the increased hiring of Negroes by city businesses, growing responsiveness from the machine politicians, even some property repair."

Clinton believed that new federal poverty programs in the 1960s were a step backward because their architects neglected to listen to individual citizens -- the crux of the Alinsky model. The policies, she said, invited the poor "into the mainstream not through their participatory planning, but through their acquiescent participation."

The lesson was still on her mind years later. She told an interviewer shortly after Bill Clinton became president that government programs were too often administered from on high, with too little effect.

"I basically argued that [Alinsky] was right," Clinton told The Washington Post in 1993. "Even at that early stage, I was against all these people who came up with these big government programs that were more supportive of bureaucracies than actually helpful to people. You know, I've been on this kick for 25 years."

In the end, Clinton gave Alinsky mixed reviews, admiring his charisma and his goal of democratic equality while questioning the usefulness and staying power of a small-bore approach based on stirring up conflict in the inner city. She noted that Alinsky was crafting a fresh appeal to the potentially powerful middle class.

All four thesis reviewers thought the paper was "wonderful," said Wellesley emeritus professor Alan Schechter, who described it as a pragmatic assessment of approaches to public policy problems. Schechter, a friend and political supporter of Clinton's, said her work revealed "an underlying idealism, but it's not a naive idealism."

For reasons Clinton and her staff will not discuss, the White House asked Wellesley to seal its copy of her thesis during her husband's presidency. By the mid-1990s, Republican foes regularly derided Clinton's thesis choice as evidence that she is a closet leftist. This month, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said on Fox News that Clinton treated Alinsky "almost like an icon," adding, "That's like holding up some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s."

As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.

IAF organizer Michael Gecan, who has met with Clinton several times, said her Wellesley work was often an icebreaker: "She would always say, 'I did my senior thesis on Alinsky.' "

As Alinsky biographer Sanford D. Horwitt put it: "Hillary is clearly aware of Alinsky's successors and the work they do. I think it's all to the good."

Clinton's 2003 memoir, "Living History," devotes a single paragraph to Alinsky, whom she describes as "a colorful and controversial figure who managed to offend almost everyone." She wrote that she agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas, "particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves," but that she rejected his job offer because of a "fundamental disagreement."

"Alinsky said I would be wasting my time," Clinton recalled, "but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within."

Organizing in Chicago

Community organizing, for Clinton principally an academic exercise, was more complex for Obama when he arrived in Chicago in 1985 to work with the Developing Communities Project, an offshoot of the Alinsky network. His experience became an emotional and visceral exploration of the roots of urban African American decay and his own identity.

Times had changed. The '60s were over. Chicago had a black mayor, and Alinsky was gone, dead of a heart attack in 1972. But his work and the fundamentals of his philosophy survived on the far South Side.

Obama stepped into the Alinsky tradition after deciding "mainly on impulse," he has said, at age 21 to become a community organizer. His passion ran to romantic visions of the civil rights struggle.

"He wanted to make that kind of contribution and didn't know how to do it," said Gerald Kellman, who hired Obama. "There's that side of him that's strongly idealistic, very much a dreamer, and this kind of work attracts that kind of person. It isn't just that we're going to change things, but we're going to change things from the grass roots."

Obama spent three roller-coaster years trying to build a new source of power in the Altgeld Gardens housing project and the Roseland community, maneuvering among neighbors, church leaders and politicians who did not always welcome the encounters.

"It was poverty on top of poverty. There were so many people who had given up. They just didn't care," said Loretta Augustine-Herron, who signed up to work with Obama. "I don't think he knew how bad it was until he came to our area. He had to have the tenacity and the patience to train us, and sometimes he had to be frustrated."

The Alinsky method, which Obama taught long afterward, is centered on one-on-one conversations. The organizer's task is to draw out people's stories, listening for their goals and ambitions -- "the stuff that makes them tick," one of his teachers told him. There he would find the self-interest that would spark activism.

Fellow community organizer Madeline Talbott said Obama mastered the approach. She remembers a successful 1992 voter-registration drive that he ran for Project Vote.

"He says things like, 'Do you think we should do this? What role would you like to play?' " said Talbott, chief organizer for Illinois ACORN. "Everybody else just puts out an e-mail and says, 'Y'all come.' Barack doesn't do that."

In time, Obama helped build and guide a small network of grass-roots groups that agitated for better playgrounds, improvements in trash pickup and the removal of asbestos from public housing. The city opened a jobs office in the tumbledown community as the lights were going out in nearby factories.

It was in those neighborhoods, Obama said in announcing for president, "that I received the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith." But by the time Obama moved on, Kellman said, he had seen "the limits of what could be achieved."

Obama spent three years at Harvard Law School, then returned to Chicago, where he taught constitutional law, handled civil rights cases and worked with community groups. He continued to teach the Alinsky philosophy, although he told the New Republic recently that "Alinsky understated the degree to which people's hopes and dreams and their ideals and their values were just as important in organizing as people's self-interest."

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a friend of Obama's, sees another difference. "If you read Alinsky's teachings, there are times he's confrontational. I have not seen that in Barack. He's always looking for ways to connect."

But when Obama first ran for office in 1995, he echoed Alinsky's credo -- and Clinton's thesis -- in arguing that politicians should not see voters "as mere recipients or beneficiaries."

"It's time for politicians and other leaders to take the next step and to see voters, residents or citizens as producers of this change," Obama told Hank De Zutter of the Chicago Reporter. "What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?"

What Obama and Clinton both learned, said Edelman, of the Children's Defense Fund, is that "community organizing is crucial but not enough."

Chicago organizer Gregory Galluzzo, Obama's former supervisor, who likes to describe himself as Alinsky's St. Paul, believes that Obama's exposure to the organizer's liturgy taught him that wisdom can emerge from the grass roots. "Hillary," he said, "leans toward the elites."

But Galluzzo believes that both candidates were influenced by their encounters with Alinsky and his methods. "By either one of them being in office," he said, "we're going to have a government that's more responsive to the ordinary people."

------------------------------------------------------------

Suckers.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Z

If you had any real understanding of the philosophy and essence of social and political change and its ramification, I don't think you would have pasted the above.

You may want to look up the term "Zeitgeist" before you make such assumtions.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Yeah Z. You don't know. You're ignorant.

Notice she took the normal liberal tactic of not debating the substance of your post but instead insulting you and deriding you that you don't understand or are stupid. (sarcasm) Because OBVIOUSLY a smart person couldn't come to your conclusion.

MikeyA

"when you understand the nature of a thing....you know what it's capable of"

Musashi...the book of five rings.

Make sure you PM me when you get back...I owe you a few beverages....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Actually I've been posting the last two days from here in Kyrgyzstan. Nice place, reminds me of Toledo. It's cold with high unemployment and no one with a clue how to stop it.

The good news is my movement back is now within the phase where it is no longer considered confidential. I will be back stateside within the next 36 hours barring no delays.

Over the last year I watched 19 and 20 year olds take three blocks of a tent city and turn it into a fully functioning city to house 24,000 individuals and support another 40,000 logistically within a 100 mile radius.

Their ability to learn to "eat soup with a knife" have made me even more disgusted with the majority of our elected leaders in my hometown who can't even make a simple Marina work despite millions of dollars and nine years.

There is nothing the motivated can't do given the right amount of discipline and leadership.

MikeyA

You glazed over my post and didn't even take issue with the core argument.

In any economy you need balance. In an Industrial age economy the balance falls within labor. It is natural because labor is the source. Yet this is not the case in the Information age.

"Oh, and I can hardly wait for our "Information age economy" to take over building roads, bridges, etc., not to mention all those cars and everything else that needs to be manufactured. " We are in it. Look around. While manufacturing will be a small part of the economy it is not the source. Just as tenant farming WAS the source of the Argriculture Age economy. How many tenant farms do you see? Did farming go away? So even though at the turn of the century people like William Jennings Bryan were fighting for the western farmer those days have since past.

Yet you neglect that the main argument of this thread is public employee unions. They are not skilled labor and unions in their industrial sector have NEVER been a natural phenomenon.

I love how you demonize the Chinese when their Communist government was founded upon the same ideals of promoting the worker as unions. When the worker is given the power the quality goes down because the incentive for quality is gone.

MikeyA

Been a lot of talk in UAW circles over this problem. With major support of the anti SB5 by the UAW many members are wondering about these public union lost souls. I think we just had a wake up call within the last few weeks.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Your wake up call came long ago.....the first time you fuckers drove your company into the fucking ground......

You guys didnt just kill the golden goose....you took turns fucking it's corpse...

Now after trying to bribe or threaten your way to prosperity for decades...you find the millions upon millions of union member dollars that Union leadership has pumped to the Libtards is all for naught......it only held off the inevitable a little longer....

The UAW now puts it's hat out for FORIEGNERS to come to it's rescue....Fiat....who couldnt even sell Fiats to Italians anymore....

As ye sow...so shall ye reap....

Fact is the UAW is all about the UAW and could give a flying fuck about auto workers...they got new jobs to unionize...like nurses and cops....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Can one of you Democrap/Union hacks answer this for me?

Why is it bad to buy cars made in Mexico by Mexicans, but Democrats are suing Arizona for closing it's borders to foreign workers coming into the US and taking American jobs?

I'm so confused. Car made by Mexican workers in Mexico=BAD But a car made by Mexican workers who are smuggled into America and taking American jobs is somehow good?

Democrats are not sending American Jobs overseas. they are bringing overseas workers into America to steal the jobs from Americans.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Misguided policy. Boot 'em out and deadbolt the door. It wouldn't hurt to cut some foreign aid, either. When your back's against the wall, you take care of your own first.

Ah the true face of liberalism.

I'm supposed to feel bad for a union employee who's being asked to re-validate whether they want to be in a union every year and assist in paying(a PORTION) for some of their benefits yet when it comes to someone who lives in a different area, speaks a different language, and is a different color I'm supposed to forget them.

While I favor controlled immigration much like what was Teddy Roosevelt's policy with Mexico (much more proactive than the Reagan policy) you never hear me say bolt' em out. To ignore a problem is to further a problem. Closing the borders alone will only hurt us more in the long run. Let's do the hard work and make the hard decisions now.

This whole debate with the unions is about one thing: Control. You see it in this thread. They want to control you as a consumer, as a taxpayer, and as a voter.

Why should I have the right to decide what vehicle I buy? I should be buying what's good for someone else.

Why should they have to pay for any of their benefits? The "rich" should be after all as Michael Moore says that's not their money it's ours (forget that we are based on an ownership society).

All of this is about a small minority controlling the rest of the population. What they make, what they drive, who they can contribute to, who they vote for.

MikeyA

You're right about one thing - the control - but you've got it backward. The GOP attack on labor is much more about tilting toward one-party control than solving our economic problems. The wingnuts have used the financial mess to scapegoat unionized workers and their supporters in the hope of breaking the Democratic Party. Read the letter from Edward J. Nussel, associate dean emeritus of the college of education at UT, on page 8 of today's Blade which says in part:

"The effort is to convince voters that lawmakers can save millions of taxpayer dollars if they can impede union activity. How accurate is this? Five states do not permit collective bargaining: South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina. All but Virginia have serious financial problems without collective bargaining to ruining their budgets."

The professor has done his homework, and his letter is an excellent commentary on the issue.

First off, I don't read the Bland. I read news and since they disguise editorial as news I have stopped reading it. In fact the last time I looked at the bland was to disprove something wolfman/LSM posted on this site.

"You're right about one thing - the control - but you've got it backward. The GOP attack on labor is much more about tilting toward one-party control than solving our economic problems."

If this was the case why are the unions trying to stop the secret ballot with the "Employee Free Choice Act". I added the quotes because it doesn't actually secure a free choice.

Secret ballots have long been a way to prevent intimidation. Yet unions, who've been on the losing side of many recent votes, are trying to do away with them. They want the exact same people who are currently forcing shutdown of the state capitols and holding up signs comparing elected leaders to Nazi's to be the ones "collecting signatures" to decide if a business unionizes. Even YOU on this site have suggested that some should not be allowed their right of free choice as a consumer because it doesn't "support" a union.

So if, the GOP is trying to control people then why are unions trying to prevent secret balloting? Because everyone knows the alternative to a secret ballot is voter intimidation.

MikeyA

Lilypad I thought the same thing. GOP control is the goal. Without unions Middle class Americans (union or not) would be living ten to a one room house. The weaken state of unions is bringing out revisions on collective bargaining, loss of pensions, pay cuts, ETC. Without the unions there will be no countering force to absolute control by members of the Robber Barron class. Its fine to think of hard work and self determination as a goal for all but opportunity in America comes from federal policy. We'll know much more of where this union attack is going by the end of the summer. My prediction is the dawn of the new Guilded Age where Americans get the full brunt of the realities of Global trade. What most of us have taken for granted as normal life in America is about to change. The trivial partisan banter will give way to a new harsh reality. Some of what is proposed is truly gut wrenching and the blowhards in media will justify it I'm sure. Hope for the best!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Admit it. Your Union "leaders" have sold you out for a buck and your Democratic keepers are selling you out too.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I always thought everyone in our country had freedom of choice to buy cars. I guess I was wrong. It sounds like collectivism is trying to take over Toledo. I'm sure it will with all the left-wing thinking that goes on here.

toledojim

but living in a city dependent in large part on the auto industry and our economy in the toilet it doesn't make much sense; or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing with a liberal?

Freedom trumps everything. And the largest employer in Toledo is now the health care industry. Would you like us all to get sick to show our support?

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I always thought everyone in our country had freedom of choice to buy the car of their choosing. I guess I was wrong. It sounds like collectivism is trying to take over Toledo. I'm sure it will with all the left-wing thinking that goes on here. Those of you unions who dare buy non-UAW made cars, you will probably get a lecture on that purchase soon.

toledojim

Lots of anger here. Glad I'll be driving a Chrysler 200 for the next week. How's that make you feel Paul? The station you hate being supported by the company you love? Imagine my high school educated fat ass in the heated, leather seats of a brand new Chrysler 200. Nice ride too.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

It's a FIAT Fred....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

The Chrysler 200 Convertible and 200 Sedan are built at the Sterling Heights, Mich. (U.S.A.) Assembly Plant.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Sorry dogboy...I dont buy foreign cars....even if they are made in america...or toledo.

BTW...that commercial you posted cost 9 million bucks....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

This is the car Chrysler has given me to drive for this week. Nice ride by the way and available for only $199 per month on a special lease program right now. Show support for the UAW by buying or leasing one today. Hey Paul Wohlfarth what year is your car? Have you supported the UAW with a new car purchase recently?

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Is mike bell a double dipper or a triple dipper?
What do you think his commission was on that sale to the chinamen?

I didn't pay enough attention last time we bought a new car. The wife wanted a Dodge Journey, I didn't notice until months later it was made in Mexico.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

For every PT cruiser sold you get a free mexican servant...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

...and nothing else.
If it doesn't come from America, then Union members shouldn't be able to buy it.

That should lower the price of gas. Once the Union hacks cannot buy gas to put in their "American Union made" gas-sucking pickup trucks, the price of gas would drop quickly and hard.

Got that big flat-screen TV for Christmas? YOU UNAMERICAN PRICKS! Did you get that Kawasaki jet ski last summer? YOU UNAMERICAN BASTARDS! How about that nice Rolex watch? YOU BLOOD-SUCKING LEECHES.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.