Well....civil unions would have
Posted By: Trigger Happy on 2009-05-02
In Reply to: No...(sm) - Just the big bad
to be something we would do on a country wide basis. I mean...what is the point if you can't leave your state because other states don't accept them. I meant this as a country wide thing. If the whole country recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage kind of thing. I guess I wasn't specific enough.
As it goes, same sex marriage is only accepted in the states that allow it. I mean...you have to live in those states to have the rights of marriage...right? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I really don't know.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You already posted this question. Civil unions are
*
Unions
I am in total agreement with your synopsis of unions. Case in point: I work for one of the largest HMO's in the country as a MT, and our jobs are on the line. We belong to a 'union' (won't say which one), and without notice, the facility decided to use VR and guess what? The majority of our MT's are either jobless or working for dang near nothing. The union stood with management and let them take our jobs and then turned around and told us that 'there was nothing they could do about it'. Our country has gone to h#ll in a handbasket since deregulation (Reagan years). They deregulated every single job such as Gourdpainter pointed out, trucking. Look at the airlines and any other large company you can think of. The American worker is an and has been an endangered species and it saddens me that on the Repub and Dem sides that we are stuck in the middle and ultimatrly pay the price for their greed and neglect when it comes to their constituents. WE suffer - not them. They don't have to worry about what to do when they decide to retire, they don't have to worry about how to give their children a good education and certainly don't have to worry about how their families are fed. There was a time when unions did their best to protect the American worker but looking at what I personally deal with at this point in time - they are weak, useless and take your money and you can believe you get little or no representation when or if its needed. JMO.
those bad ol' unions
I love how the unions are always the secret cause of the problems. If demanding good pay and fair treatment can utterly destroy the economy, then maybe our economy is too unbalanced to be worth saving.
You're right, though. It's a lot easier to create a cheap job where workers are unprotected and uninsured, than it is to create a good job. And so the foreign car companies came flocking to the southern US to build their factories, and the US taxpayer, as always, picked up the cost of the uninsured. And now the business is bottoming out, and there's no safety net for the workers, because everybody was too busy trying to cut costs and complaining about those evil union workers up north.
What the unions have done lately
is negotiate bloated hourly pay rates and pension plans. The car manufacturers, of course, agreed. Couple that with executive pay and bonuses, the effect has been to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
I believe it was a triad, the unions, executives, and government meddling that has killed the auto industry.
Let's not leave out the government's part in this - long before the bailouts, government mandates and standards for manufacturing cars other than what people wish to buy. And since the government could not ban SUVs and trucks (apparently what many consumer wanted and still want) it attacks them in a different way.
We've all read claims that SUVs are 'responsible for highway deaths.' Why? Because the SUV driver walked away and the family of four driving a roller skate did not? Look for gas prices to go back up to four bucks and stay there. That will be to force us to drive tiny death trap cars. People were actually buying them when gas prices were high, but sales dropped when the per-gallon price got back down to two dollars.
Maybe there will also be some kind of tax based on vehicle size or weight, either on purchase, or to scoop more of us into the governmentm maw, a federal surtax when we reregister our current cars.
Unions, etc.
1. I agree that I kind of mixed up two points here. I was sort of confused about you saying I needed to educate myself on percentages, though. And I was being kind enough not to mention that we might not need such a large part of our budget going to the DOD had Mr. Bush not gotten us into at least one, if not two unwinnable wars with the loss of over 4,000 young American lives, on the basis of, shall we say, fibbing, or making up "facts on the ground" that were totally false. But hey, Mission Accomplished!
2. I don't think a transcription union would work - especially right now. Too many people are worried about keeping their jobs to complain about how our pay rate has actually decreased over the years rather than increased. 30 years ago I was earning 5 cents per line for a 50-character line, straight typing, correcting mistakes with white-out (so happy when correcting selectrics arrived) and managing 100 dollars a day. That amount actually meant something back then. Nowadays people are under so much stress, not knowing when the "other shoe is going to fall" that they are happy to have scraps, as long as it means they have a job.
3. I'm not exactly sure what happened with the UAW, other than being put under incredible pressure to make concession after concession, all while being made to look like the bad guys who were the cause of all the trouble. For myself, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to work on the line day after day, as was the case for some of my relatives. My husband's union is a very strong union. Every year he has gotten a raise in pay, he has vacation pay, health insurance, and a pension plan. I don't really think I provided you with a "cache of union slogans", but I am very thankful for the Ironworkers Union.
I think probably the end of unions is not far away. Union-busting seems to be a favorite activity of certain people. All I can tell you is that for my family, my husband was able to earn a living wage in his very dangerous occupation.
As I alluded to previously, in our great country we are entitled to our opinions. I thank God for that.
I swear this is all because of the unions. They will
nm
want to talk about unions?
the places i've seen around our area who have unions are pathetic. i've seen unions protect employees who come to work intoxicated, who don't come to work at all, who PLAY CARDS on work time, do what they want because their "union will protect" them. so if you are suggesting the union is American... that's pretty pathetic. if they were actually protect HARD WORKING AMERICANS, then i'd be fine with it.
you wanna talk about "jabs" at obama? i guess "a bunch of losers" would not be a jab?
i believe the unions were meant to
maybe part of the downfall is because of the lazy ones who rode on the backs of the hard workers.
that is the only part of a union that i could say i'm against. if you are not pulling your weight, enough... ya know?
regarding these MTs who cherry pick, i wish these companies would call them on it, give them notice and get rid of them... there are plenty of good MTs who would gladly take their place.
actually i have seen norma rae.. lol... it has been YEARS go though...
I have seen unions do good and bad
Did anyone take note of what happened with the last grocery strikes in California. The employees certainly did not end up better off after months of striking for a corrupt union. I have also seen them do very good things. They do keep wages high--sometimes, perhaps too high. Checkers at your grocery stores used to have to memorize codes and prices and everything else. Now, it is so simple that you and I can do it with no training whatsoever, thus, the self checkout, so maybe, just maybe, $20/hour with really good benefits is more than that job is worth at this point. I think that unions are good and bad, but the sanctity of the secret ballot needs to be preserved. Of course, this is just my opinion and some of you out there might disagree 200%.
Deregulation of unions in US
Gourdie: I definitely agree, and I find it such a shame that the workers and consumers in this country cannot see what has happened. All this talk about OSHA, etc. has no meaning anymore because the backbone of these government offices have no backbone and don't give a gnat's tweeter how the American workers have and continue to suffer.
Profitable? Doing well? No unions?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/germ-o25.shtml
European Auto Industry in Crisis
http://www.emf-fem.org/Press/Press-release-archive/2007/EU-Automotive-Restructuring-Forum
EU Automotive Restructuring Forum - talks about working with trade unions
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/ashuster/nonviolence/2008/09/romanian_autoworkers_strike_against_rockbottom_wages.html
Romanian Autoworkers Strike Against Rock-Bottom Wages
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/german-autoworkers-threaten-strike/
German Autoworkers Threaten Strike
http://uk.oneworld.net/contact/company/view/18
Canadian Autoworkers Union Directory
http://www.just-auto.com/article.aspx?id=89621
UK: Car workers' Union Frustrated by Low Manufacturers Output
http://www.autonews24h.com/Auto-Industry/Peugeot-Citroen/741.html
UK Peugeot Workers Vote Against Strike to Protest Lay-Offs
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=573
Swedish Auto Workers Campaign
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2002/10/feature/it0210303f.htm
Crisis at Fiat Worsens - name countless unions
Yet another reason we need unions...nm
x
This, along with the millions to the unions
help pay for Mr. O's presidency being bought. These 2 for sure, reckon how much more?
unions redux
The question that always comes to mind, when I hear how lazy and shiftless all those UAW workers are, is--who made all those millions and millions of cars on the road, all these years? It certainly couldn't be the union workers, right? They wouldn't lift a finger to make a car, they were too busy fanning themselves with hundred dollar bills. So who made the cars?
The austrian-school piece you quote is a good example of the thing that is most wrong with our country: Turning worker against worker, while the CEOs profit. Boiled down to its essentials, the article says: ''Workers shouldn't have any power to organize to defend their rights. Their pay should be determined by the free market--a market that is not so much free, as it is controlled by the corporate interests.''
That is the ideological foundation: Enrich the rich, at the expense of the worker. The pratical method: Keep workers from organizing so that their interests don't have to be considered. And the antiunion rhetoric that we've all heard, all our lives, is the propaganda technique that makes it seem reasonable.
I don't doubt that the foreign car companies who have based operations here in the non-unionized southern US have good production numbers. They have received massive government intervention in their own countries, enabling them to create better production methods (rather than simply enriching the CEOs and stockholders, as our domestic companies seem intent on). The fact that, in their own countries, they don't have to pay for insurance for their workers, because these benefits are provided by the government, helps them stay lean. Our own method, throwing workers to the wolves, also helps socialize costs, but with a more chilling, terrifying effect.
Anyway. My point: If you are against workers organizing to defend their rights, then you are on the side of the wealthy who have organized to defend their wealth. There is not a middle ground.
Bringing up from below about taxes/unions
At first we were told the outsourcing was to cut labor costs. Only after this campaign rhetoric took hold did the issue of taxes come up. Now I ask you, if the reason for outsourcing is taxes, what the heck? Didn't Bush CUT taxes.
It seems that American people have lost the reasoning side of their collective brains. When I quit working a few months ago I was making LESS than I made in the 80s. How is that possible? The cost of medical care has not gone down. The cost of medical insurance has not gone down. I posted some time ago about a local hospital that laid off their most experienced nurses, not a few of them, ALL of them, and hired new graduate nurses to replace them at lesser wages. What was that about? They got away with it though. Anything to increase the bottom line profit.
This is true in every industry. They like to blame labor for everything. Well, how the heck can you buy a $2+ loaf of bread and $5 gallon of milk on minimum wage, ya know? Take gasoline for example. Sure it has gone down the last days but is it back where it was when oil was what? $86 a barrel or whatever? No and it never will be.
So that car you drive.........how much do you think of the price tag is labor?
These things are what really aggravates me. People just can't seem to use reasoning power any more. I'll give you an example: After my husband lost his job in the CF fiasco, he drove for awhile for a friend who owns a trucking company. I went with him on a trip. He picked up a load of beef in Boonesville, AR, hauled it to Chicago, no problem. Then they sent him somewhere in Ohio to pick up a load of vinegar to take to Florida. Got to Ohio and I forget the reason but he couldn't pick up the vinegar. Then he was sent (empty) to Logan (?), Kentucky where he picked up 40,000 pounds of chocolate covered doughnuts which he delivered to Phoenix. In Phoenix they told him that most of that load would be routed back to Atlanta. Now what kind of sense does that make? Taxes the problem? I would say poor management is a bigger problem than taxes OR labor.
I'm sorry about your dad's experience. People used to do things like that. I recall my late father-in-law, worked for the fire department in Fort Worth and he said during the depression they did the same thing, worked less so the ones with less seniority could keep a job. They all suffered but they suffered together and somehow they all made it as did your parents.
I am just horrified at the apparent digress of intelligence in this country. It seems people believe anything the news media or anyone else tells them. Seems they have totally lost the ability to reason and God forbid that anyone should think of anyone other than themself.
All that said, feel free to go ahead and believe that companies are outsourcing jobs because of labor costs or taxes. The unionized workers, under Reagan, started taking wage concessions, that is taking a DECREASE in pay to keep jobs. How did that work? Don't believe I've heard of any of the victims of outsourcing even being offered a pay cut to keep the jobs in this country. Certainly not the Rheem plant in Fort Smith that the other day laid off the last 600 workers. They sent most of their production to Mexico a few years ago. Fort Smith they say is dying because of outsourcing. Their reason? They say, it's "labor costs." Well, then, how is it that people can't afford to pay their bills with all the excessive wages they're supposedly receiving. Obviously the next in vogue EXCUSE will be that taxes are lower in other countries. B.S.!!!!!!!
Unions don't work anymore.
Some union members are afraid to vote for better benefits or strike because management threatens to move, like the other posters stated.
Case in point: A small manufacturing shop. Union wanted higher wages or strike, and health care benefits to stay the same, both in cost and care. The union wanted a $.25 an hour raise. Owner said No. Union asked for $.15. Owner said no. Union said strike. Workers said no. They were afraid the owner would shut down and they had their jobs for 30 years.
The union steward fought for better benefits but when the workers voted against the better benefits, the company won. Two weeks later, the steward was laid off, along with a member of my family just because he was friends with the union steward. That was 3 years ago. The workers are still working for the same hourly rate this year. How's that for being fair?
I was a member of the Teamster's. When we went on strike for better wages back in the ྂs, he company threatened to move out.. We also wanted (women) equal pay for equal work because we did the same work the men did, but got paid $.25 an hour less. They moved and 100 jobs were lost. So, you see, companies still have the upper hand, not unions. They only want your money anymore. They really don't care about the workers.
No, unions DO put them in a financial hole.
nm
The unions are killing companies, though. That is
nm
Have a question for the labor unions....
especially the UAW....how do you like him now that he has thrown you under the "let the automakers go bankrupt" bus. Be careful what you vote for.....
I think they should go bankrupt. Unions didn't cause it -
well, i guess the word has not gotten to the unions then...
at end of article they quoted one union leader as saying his members "would not tolerate" this. It was an article dated yesterday. But, it would not surprise me that he would exempt unions, which makes absolutely NO sense, because they are the best and most costly benefits to be had. So, probably so, it will be on the backs of folks like us. My question is...what are they going to do after they break our backs? Who is going to pay for all their cr*p then?? Why, whatever am I thinking? Soon it will be only the "poor" which will include all of us, and the government and those who kiss*d the government as* who prosper...hmmm. Kinda like Venezuela...kinda like Nazi Germany...hmmm.
Yeah, I'll talk about unions s/m
Two husbands who were union workers. One IBEW, one Teamster. BOTH said there were workers who didn't carry their share of the work load...not much different than MTs who cherry pick for instance.
#1 IBEW husband said at the time or Reganomics, when Ronald Reagan, himself a card-carrying member of the actor's union, said he would break the unions, it would be the downfall of the American workers.. Regan succeeded in breaking the backs of the unions. When union workers lost the ability to bargain, they had to start taking wage concessions......and guess what? Union wages went down, so did non-union wages follow suit. When union workers got better working conditions, better wages and better benefits, so did non-union workers.
#2 Teamster husband is a radical retired Teamster. While he also complained that there were lazy workers who rode on the backs of the hard-workers, he also said that the union does not support such and more times than not the union would uphold the firing of such a person. He has a Teamster retirement that is the envy of most people and he has retiree health care benefits even though we pay about $700 a month for that. While he was working, his union dues were around $35 a month and that covered our insurance. Teamster retirees today will not enjoy those benefits.
Do some research on the history of unions. Might not hurt to watch the movie Norma Rae as well.
civil war
During the civil war the rich people, who owned slaves, worked up the poor people, who did not own slaves, into a frenzy about how the north was bossing them around, how they should leave the union and it was an ideological war. All the rich people left their plantations and went north until the war was over. The poor people fought out, brother against brother, without shoes, for an idea. The rich people came back after it was over and kicked the freed slaves off their land, right into the laps of the poor people who had to compete with them now for jobs. The rich stayed rich, alive, and healthy, and all of the poor people were slaughtered.
Are all you republicans rich? Don't fight for them, they are on vacation.
Thank you van - and thank you for being civil
Everyone here gave me a headache I shut it down for awhile. Talk about jumping on and attacking. Heaven forbid anyone should ever put their opinions or beliefs up on this board.
You are correct and I did state in one (if not more) that I was incorrect and he did not lie. But even after saying that they kept attacking and attacking. Then bringing up past posts that had nothing to do with this.
Thank you for posting below all the countries in the Middle East. That helps sort things out.
Like I said, they have every civil right I have.....
--
Political civil war that really does sum it up....sm
And it really is a sad state of affairs.
You raise a good point about bin Laden, I never thought of that. He could have died of natural causes and be buried somewhere. It's not like he was the most vigorous being (healthwise). Who knows?
Catching him two years ago would have meant more politically and *antiterror* wise than it would mean today.
I definitely agree with you - we all need to be civil
Sharing one's viewpoints is one thing. There is no need to call people nasty names. Those other bashings you are talking about came after I posted my message, so I didn't see them.
I hate to quote Rodney King but we all do need to get along. Having one viewpoints is important (it's what makes us human beings), but not everyone will agree with us, and as you stated in your message calling you a d-bag (that has got to be so low class) just because you don't agree with someone? I think I called someone that in high school (but that was over 30 years ago). We will all disagree about issues, but I hope people would be nicer and just say "I disagree and this is why", and leave it at that.
I am sorry you were called all those horrible things. I just want you to know that with our disagreements I in no uncertain terms think you are a d-bag or jerk or anything horrible like that. You are a person just like me. Strong in our beliefs, just different in our ways.
You do Civil War re-enactment?
Politics aside, I feel like I'm meeting some new FRIENDS on this board! By any chance are you going to participate in the Prairie Grove, Arkansas re-enactment the 1st weekend in Dec? We're working to get recognition for the Battle of Cane Hill and hopefully in the next few years we'll have a re-enactment here.
Why have civil defense. NM
x
Civil Defense
civil defense: NOUN: abbr. CD A range of emergency measures to be taken by an organized body of civilian volunteers for the protection of life and property in the event of natural disaster or enemy attack.
For someone who "laments" civil debate
you do a fair job of attacking me - it at least feels like one - and I am hardly a Republican... something you obviously hate.
I totally share your disgust of the fascists in power and those who defend them. But if you think for a New York Second the Democrats are much less corrupt you are fooling yourself.
Ask yourself WHY in the face of clear criminal conduct the Democrats have not only successfully challenged bu$h but have HELPED TO ADVANCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF HIS AGENDA (POLICIES).
You do a little real research on this and get back to me. Maybe then you'll hve a better idea why I am a recovering Democrat.
Clinton himself said it best: Fool me once (democratic party), shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ME.
They are the first to invoke their civil liberties. sm
And the first to silence others who do not agree with them. They have attempted to bring the office of the Presidency down to their level...disrespectful, unhallowed, a slip shod Animal House with pizza lovers who trash the house when they leave and steal all the W's from the keyboards. Their beloved Clinton sold the Lincoln Bedroom to people who had no awe of anything, much less respect for all who slept there before. They had sex with young interns and said it wasn't sex. They lied under oath and brought their shady cronyism into the White House. Theyrefused background FBI checks and refused to have their medical records made public, both firsts in any presidency. In other words, THEY HAD NO RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE. This from a man who promised the most ethical presidency ever. And those very same people who continue to support Clinton to this day swear it was all about sex post on this very board about following rules. It boggles the mind.
Lincoln and civil rights
Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.
Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.
The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
Civil Rights Act voting
Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.
As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Currently in Kentucky ther is a civil
trial going on against members of the KKK for beating up someone at one of the county fairs.
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
marriage vs civil union
As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.
What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status.
How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states.
How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry.
I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'
If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
Civil marriages don't just involve
Lots of people are married by JPs. Have for years. And a church might decide that they would not hire a heterosexual on the basis that they "weren't married in the church". Granted, most don't even inquire, but it could happen, if we accept the governor's ridiculous statement. And he suggests that if they did, it would be hunky-dory. Churches aren't required to recognize "civil marriages" by his pronouncement. This would obviously have to include homosexual and heterosexual marriages or now we have a THIRD type of marriage.
My point is that there is no legal differentiation between a "civil marriage" and one that is performed in a church and never has been. If the governor is now suggesting that there is such a difference, he is nuts.
This is what I found on the civil rights vote.
House Debate and Passage
The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.
I thought after reading your post that there was something wrong with that statement, Republicans passed the civil rights act; Huh?? Then I remembered at that time the south was predominantly Democratic and I believe those elected officials were voting more on their constituents' demands than on the platform of the Democratic party. That also explains why Johnson said, **As of today, Democrats have lost the south.** and he was right. It looks to me like a bipartisan deal. I got the above information from the Everett Dirksen Library Archives.
This also demonstrates to me how a party can change or evolve its platforms. The Democratic south was once **the little people, the working class, the most good for the most people party.** After the civil rights act the south became predominantly Republican and remains so. In 1964 the south did not want equal rights for women, blacks, religions. They wanted things to stay the way they were. I think the Republicans provided that for them. In 1964 I think it safe to say that WASP was pretty much the bulk of the Republican party and that appealed to the south who were being forced at gunpoint to change.
I don't know about the suffrage movement but I always wonder if they caught the same flack then that NOW gets now. I am going to look that up though.
don'forget civil rights lawyer
and constitutional law professor. Yep, I think he think on his feet with the best of em.
We are heading toward a civil war of a magnitude we cannot foresee
Never in my lifetime have issues gotten so ugly/hateful. This will be the first illegal election in history if Sen. Obama is elected. People do not care that he does not meet the requirements to be President. They will go against the constitution just to get him elected. Why? I know there are a lot of people who would like Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. If Obama who is not a native born, and is possibly not even a US Citizen can be elected and have the constitution violated for him, then we should be able to do it for Gov. Schwarzenegger. There are so many people who will say we have to protect the constitution, yet they’ll turn a blind eye when it comes to electing someone who is not an American born, and who is possibly still a citizen of Indonesia (forget that he is Muslin, I don’t care about his religion, he may possibly be a citizen of another country). We have a candidate who is so busy running around like a chicken with his head cut off suppressing the truth from Americans, and there are Americans attacking others (no that that girl with a B in her face – I hope she is prosecuted for what she has done), but others who attack (verbally and physically) anyone who is not allowing this lie to proceed. Mr. Obama was supposed to be checked out thoroughly before he could run and the DNC failed to do that. Mr. Obama is calling for the health records of all candidates, yet he won’t release his own. Sorry but a one-page statement from his doctor saying Mr. Obama is healthy, that's all you need to know, with no details whatsoever (and from someone whose parents died at a young age and he smoked his whole life and took drugs and drank) the American people have a right to know this – especially since their side is pushing to have Palin & McCains “full” records be known to the public and people are screaming and shouting its their right to know the full health records of the republicans, shouldn’t that go for Obama too? Then there is the issue of his school records. Why is he desperately trying to suppress those. Most likely it will show he is a citizen of Indonesia and never became a US Citizen. You know if a democrat president is elected fine, just let it be a legal one. Follow the constitution and not this love-fest everyone is sharing towards Obama. Some good democrats that would make fine presidnets are Richardson & Kucinich. I'd even be okay with Edwards.
But I say we are heading toward a civil war because we have people already threatening that if Obama does not win there will be “riots in the streets like we haven’t seen”, but if he is elected and it is illegal there will be riots of another kind. You are going to have so many Americans angry and disenfranchised with the government that if you thought the Boston Tea Party was ugly this will be worse.
Then we have the issue of the every day American citizens. We are suffering. There’s no doubt about it. We are heading into a depression (do not blame Bush for the whole thing as it started its downward spiral under the Carter administration and continued through the Clinton administration, and yes some republicans are to blame), but Americans are suffering. We are losing our jobs, our homes, cannot afford to send our kids to college, let alone buy gas and groceries or go to the doctor. More and more people’s savings are being wiped out and their retirement plans are worthless. Yet the politicians (both republican AND democrat) are getting richer and richer. The latest saying in the Washington political scene is “if you were not a millionaire before you came in you will be one when you leave”. Politicians are no longer working for the American people; they are working for themselves and their rich friends and against us. They don’t care about us - they don’t care one iota. They have made so many loopholes to protect themselves and have lied so many times they are covering their lies with lies and saying exactly what they think we want to hear.
All I say is if Sen. Obama is elected, the election will be a fraud, the office of President will be a fraud, and with the three branches of office (house, senate, and president) ALL being democrat, he will not be impeached for fraud and they will continue on with their illegal activities. And the country will see a civil distress. Why should we abide by laws when our government doesn’t.
People need to wake up. The constitution is being violated and they are all okay with that. It’s all very sickening. I just think its disgraceful that people would rather see our country destroyed than to elect Senator McCain. Sure I wish it was someone else (R. Paul, M. Romney, D. Hunter or any of the others, but its not). If McCain gets in don’t worry, it will only be four years and then another election will be held and maybe this time a candidate will be chosen on the democratic side that is legal. That is of course if the Mayan calendar is wrong.
First of all, blacks received the right to vote after the civil war,
try 140 years ago (NOT 40) when the Reconstruction Ammendments were passed between 1865 and 1870. Women received the right vote with the 19th Ammendment in 1920 (88 years ago).
I think history has established that slavery is wrong. I refuse to believe that I, as a white person, must continually apologize to the black man or woman for slavery that happened to their ancestors centuries ago! I personally have never codoned or owned slaves and they personally have never been slaves. So I ask you, what does slavery have to do with Obama being elected president? What does slavery have to do with his compaign and this election? Who is making race an issue here? I'll answer the last one, YOU are by insinuating that Obama and all African-Americans deserve special accolades just because they are black. They did not suffer as slaves. They did not have to overcome slavery. And today's African-Americans receive more rights and more governmental assistant, then any white person I know. Just look at affirmative action for crying out loud!
Rahm Emanuel wants forced civil service
Listen to the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfV8iXiB9Xg
DH said its disgusting that he's laughing about it.
Jeez - is JTBB the only civil person on this board
Believing that the whole thing is one intermingled war in the middle east is not spin. Those are my beliefs. When I talk to my friend and she talks about her husband in Iraq and she says the middle east, then she talks about her son in Afghanistan and she refers that to the middle east, that is why I always believed both countries are in the middle east. That is not spin???? And for pete's sake don't call me ignorant!!!! Like I said I always believed both Iraq and Afghanistan were in the middle east. I'm not trying to incite war against Obama - sheesh! Get a grip. I read a news story and posted it here about Obama sending troops to Afghanistan. The article said 17,000 troops are going to Afghanistan. That is not spin, that is citing a news article I read. He lied - Okay I'm wrong about that. He did not lie about the sending troops to Afghanistan thing (I don't remember him saying he would send them, but I've heard they are on youtube and if they are on youtube then I believe JTBB (she's the one who pointed me in the right direction).
You know I could say a lot of negative and nasty words to you like you did to me, but I'd probably be banned, so I'd appreciate it if you keep your closed minded opinions to yourself. Your whole post to me sounds like BS in itself and your just too eager to attack.
we'd be better off without illegals..he deserves a commendation, not a civil suit...
++
Civil Liberty Effects - Police State Pizza
http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927
National security? Civil liberties? Must be socialist conspiracy
This is an amazing article that not too suprisingly will probably go unaddressed, right along with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae corporate bailout story. The're too busy getting ready for the coronation ball. However, I just wanted to thank you for passing this along. The links and other articles also lead to some insightful and interesting reads on stories that will probably end up thrown under the royal coach. Let them eat cake!
Community service and CIVIL service - not the same thing nm
x
|
