Join the union, OR ELSE!
Posted on 02/23/2006 6:28:31 AM PST by RushCrush
RUSH: Jerry in Long Beach, I'm glad you waited, sir, welcome to the program.
CALLER: Uh, Rush, I'm a proud member of the longshoremen's union.
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: I don't appreciate you attacking our union, try to make this part of this debate. Are you telling us that Republicans don't care about our jobs? Are you telling us that Republicans want to break our union?
RUSH: No.
CALLER: Is that what this deal was about?
RUSH: No! No.
CALLER: Or is this about -- Or is this about President --
RUSH: There you go again! There you go stereotyping! There you go stereotyping.
CALLER: Is he afraid he's not going to get his commission?
RUSH: I'm telling you that from everything I know, nothing's going to change. I have said this for the past two days.
CALLER: So why are you attacking my union?
RUSH: I'm not "attacking your union"! I'm simply pointing out who your union donates to and explaining why Schumer and Hillary and these other Democrats are speaking out in opposition to the deal. While they're telling us it's about national security, it's not, they're telling it because they're trying to loyal to you. You're the ones that --
CALLER: What you're not saying is that this is a violation of the Trading with Enemies Act. You couple this with the violation of the Espionage Act, a violation of the Foreign Intelligence --
RUSH: It's none of that.
CALLER: -- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, you've got this president committing three felonies, sir!
RUSH: It's none of that!
CALLER: He's a criminal.
RUSH: (laughing)
CALLER: And what you're doing is criminal -- and don't you attack my union!
RUSH: I didn't attack your union, but I'm about to start --
CALLER: Well, let's get it on, buddy.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
The guy was a basic "seminar caller". Once he went off on "Bush committed 3 felonies", he was in Sheehan-land.
These people are way overpaid...doing work "a caveman could do".
And I don't have to take them to dinner because it's the cavemen I'm referring to.
LOL!!!
bttt to #1
The UAE probably is the most liberal, pro-West country out of the Muslim Arab countries and their motivation is probably pure business profit. No doubt about that. A recent survey (Zogby sauce, no less) found that only 14% of residents of the UAE liked us even a little bit. Their main gripe with us is that we should abandon Israel to certain destruction and get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, as we are defiling Muslim lands. No matter how benign they may appear sitting in their Ferraris holding a beer, they are not in any sense looking out for our interests beyond what they need to obtain from us. I say this not as a slap to the UAE but as a fact that must be taken into consideration. They work for Islam, Inc.
But the Union got to raise the
dues, didn't they? So someone
benefitted...the guys at the top
of the ladder...as usual.
I think wideawake succinctly described how I feel about unions.
LOL. Your welcome.
Who needs the Lotto?
But that's what made it fun! What took Rush by surprise was how angry the guy was. It was great!
The day before the strike started there was a gang of transit workers outside one of the GC subway entrances whooping like savages and daring passersby to criticize the impending strike.
One troglodyte was shouting at the top of his lungs: "I'm talking revolution, yo! You motherf***ers got a problem with that! Talking about a revolution!"
Disgusting goldbrickers.
"You may be confused. I'm not a lazy union GM worker doodling in the job bank center and getting paid 95% of a salary. I'm a self-made man, not a parasite. I learned to read and write using a pen - no union meathead I."
Ooooh, I guess I'm supposed to bow now?
Not a union meathead? Just a regular one? Look, it's that attitude that makes unions neccessary. Stereotype the entire union. All 125,000 GM workers are useless human beings. You don't care in the least that they're Americans. But you're a real patriot, right? There are probably union workers who coach your kid in baseball, or some other task you're way to important to do.
Most modern unions are bad, but not all unions are bad. Abusive employers are bad, but not all employers are abusive.
Just somebody else going to be writing the checks and making the prophet on the operations at these six ports, but I don't know what this has to do with the Patriot Act.
Do you suppose the use of "prophet" in place of "profit" was intentional?
To say that you are completely against unions is short sighted. The reality lies somewhere in the middle. Unions have some benefits (purchase power for medical benefits for one). Here in Arizona (a right to work state), the construction industry is having a difficult time finding labor. Why? Because the non-union companies have kept the market so low that all qualified workers have gone elsewhere (Vegas being a prime example). Why would a 20 year old kid go to work in the construction industry starting at 10-12 dollars an hour when he can work at home depot for 18 and be in an air conditioned environment flirting with cute girls? Heck, you can work at In 'n Out or Walmart for $10. I would like to think that business owners would share the wealth and pay people a reasonable wage, but the reality is that most do not. I am not completely for unions, but to not see that they have some value is just ignorant. A checks and balance system is not a bad thing...
>>>Unions gain leverage in both ways they admit (fraudulent sick-outs, abandoning jobs they agreed to do, etc.) and in ways they do not admit to, but which are well-known (veiled threats of sabotage, violence, intimidation of replacement hires, etc.).
>>>If any other vendors ganged up on consumers this way they would be looking at civil lawsuits and jailtime.
Remember the bone that show up in the meat shipment to Japan that got our imports banned?
That happened at Atlantic Veal & Lamb, in Brooklyn NY. A la Workers’ Union, Local 155, employees.
Here is a cease and desist order for their behavior on previous occasions.
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/342/342-37.htm
Am I saying that bone was put in that shipment as a form of activism? Well, I didn't say that. But just look at this thread as a lovely example of the behavior of our Union Workers.
I'll put my crayolas down now.
Hey! I am for the deal, not against it.
>>>"Well, let's get it on, buddy." That's a challenge, but not a threat.
No, that is local jagan. It is not a challenge. That is being asked to step outside and settle this. I'm from this area. That is how we talk.
good thread.
"Tony Snow is on his radio show right now freaking out about how stupid conservatives are being about being so willing to throw the UAE over the side. Tommy Franks is talking to him and wants you chumps to know that the UAE vowed to donate 100 million dollars to help us with Katrina. And some of you want to spit in their faces. Wise up!!!" ~ Hound of the Baskervilles
The "wise", without having all the facts, wouldn't have run off on an emotion-driven tangent with Bush's enemies in the first place.
BS Repellant
MULLINGS.com An American Cyber-Column
Port Insecurity http://www.mullings.com/index.html
Rich Galen
Wednesday February 22, 2006
This port deal is not a national security issue. It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light.
Let's try that again.
The Administration has no demonstrated capacity to brief allies on its activities so, when a public announcement is made, they have friends ready to explain to the public, either through or in spite of, the news media, what is really going on.
When the National Security Agency's intercept program became public, it was immediately called "domestic eavesdropping" or "domestic spying."
That went on for two weeks before the White House finally had the President refer to it as "terrorist surveillance."
As H.R. Haldeman was reported to have written atop memos he thought lacking: T-L-Squared.
Too little. Too late.
I have been watching this port thing develop over the past 72 hours and a common theme among Members of Congress is: We can't have foreign companies operate US ports.
Robert Menendez (D-NJ), according to the Liberal website Democratic Underground said, "We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either."
This is the key to the problem. None of these goofballs knew that the ports of New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans were ALREADY run by a foreign-owned company.
The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a British outfit, has the contract to operate these ports. P & O (as it is known to those of us well-schooled in the port-operations game) is being sold to another company - Dubai Ports World (DP World) which will take over P & O's existing contracts.
All right, so this deal, which has been known to the financial community since November, gets approved by one of those alphabet commissions which happens to involve SIX Cabinet Departments including Treasury, State, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Justice; which they did.
But the Administration didn't think it was necessary to lay the groundwork for the announcement the other day that the sale of one foreign company to another foreign company had been approved.
So, the cable news programming geniuses have been talking about the US outsourcing "port security" to Dubai.
This is like saying the company which operates your local airport - which is to say it decides how much you pay for parking and where in the terminal the Starbucks will be located - is responsible for airline security.
It isn't.
Nor will DP World be responsible for port security. That remains with Customs and the Coast Guard.
The reason the President bristled about this today is because he doesn't think he deserves to be doubted on his commitment to the national security.
It is one thing for Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton to complain. It is something else again for Dennis Hastert or Bill Frist to doubt whether the President is strong enough on terrorism.
The Left has been wailing about George W. Bush being, if anything, TOO aggressive on his anti-terrorism efforts using the NSA intercepts as their example. Now those same people are complaining the President is not being tough enough.
Want to know what's really behind all this?
It's an even numbered year and we are 253 days from election day.
It's not about port security; It's about incumbent security.
On the Secret Decoder Ring page today:
A link to the Fox News summary of the issue written largely by Major Garrett; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html
A link to a history of P & O (which is pretty interesting); http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,212168&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL
A link to a history of DP World (which is less interesting, but includes a listing of all the countries in which they do this kind of work); http://www.dpiterminals.com/subpages.asp?PSID=1&PageID=21
a Mullfoto showing how I was showered with affection during my trip to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; and a Catchy Caption of the Day. http://www.mullings.com/dr_02-22-06.htm
243 posted on 02/22/2006 12:56:10 AM EST by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583067/posts?page=243#243
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583265/posts?page=86#86
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583191/posts?page=30#30
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583146/posts?page=255#255
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1582942/posts?page=2412#2412
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.