So just exactly where does Dean really stand on Unions.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Lemme summarize this thread: Dean bad. Unions bad. Wave flag. God bless corporate Amerika.
Let me summarize almost every other thread in the forum. Bush bad. Republicans bad. Wag finger/Turn up nose. God bless zocialism;)

CkG
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Gotta love the hypocricy. Collusion by workers is good, but collusion by manufacturers is bad. Here's a clue: prison camps aren't the only overseas sources of labor, despite what Fox News would have you believe. Maybe the British should have refused to buy New Jersey tomatoes because slave labor was used in the South, which gave them an unfair competitive advantage.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
My thoughts on Dean: A progressive (read: socialist) liberal who's trying to disguise himself as a centrist. Luckily he wont get elected, but the thought that such a fringe candidate can get so much momentum is frightening for the future of this country.
Quite possibly one of the most misinformed statements I've ever encountered concerning Dean. Educate yourself, starting here-

Linkie

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
My thoughts on Dean: A progressive (read: socialist) liberal who's trying to disguise himself as a centrist. Luckily he wont get elected, but the thought that such a fringe candidate can get so much momentum is frightening for the future of this country.
Quite possibly one of the most misinformed statements I've ever encountered concerning Dean. Educate yourself, starting here-

Linkie
Anyone using that article as "education" about Dean needs to raise the bar a little bit. A lot of misstatements in that article the most blatant being that Dean started the "rainy day fund". Pure and utter bullshit. All you have to do is see the date it was put into law. There's more, less blatant BS but it doesn't really matter. Dean already ruined any chance of election when he said taxes needed to be raised. If he gets the nomination that's all the Republicans need to defeat him. It's too bad too. If he had just learned when to keep his mouth shut he might have actually had a chance.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
My thoughts on Dean: A progressive (read: socialist) liberal who's trying to disguise himself as a centrist. Luckily he wont get elected, but the thought that such a fringe candidate can get so much momentum is frightening for the future of this country.
Quite possibly one of the most misinformed statements I've ever encountered concerning Dean. Educate yourself, starting here-

Linkie
Oh, the irony:p Educating yourself with the LA Times:p hehe.



Yes I know - attack the source...IT WAS A JOKE!

But anyway - IMO it was NOT a "misinformed" post. Dean is NOT a centrist by any stretch of the imagination. One or two issues does not a centrist make. He is decidedly anti-war, he is against Unions...oh, wait a minute...Yes he is for forcing Unions....and the list could go on and on. Now - that doesn't mean he is as "fringe" as say Nader, but he most certainly is not "centrist".
Keep trying to portray him as one though...it should keep you busy:p

CkG
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Let's see, should I trust Dean or cheap labor conservatives to look out for US labor. It is a hard decision.
We get it, Republicans want cheap labor. It will always be like that. They want to put employers in position of power where they can extract the most amount of labor for least amount of dollars.
One way is to remove collective bargain, and have workers individually negotiate with huge corporations, and second way is to expose US workers to competition from cheap foreign labor, either overseas, brought here on worker visas, or undocumented aliens.
Union or not, US labor will not be cost competitive with overseas labor. IT industry is not unionized, and it's moving to India. Same for telemarketing, tech support, etc.
I am not a big fan of the unions, but I would trust them before cheap labor conservatives to look out for the working man. It's the lesser of two evils kind of choice.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
Rather than reading CAD's propaganda and blatant misrepresentations, along with Ultra's usual vague disclaimers, try this link for Dean's stand on labor, which was up and running long before the Hardball misunderstanding-

Dean

Nothing's changed, we all have a slip of the tongue now and then. Might want to reference the rest of the site for Dean's stand on other issues, too, prior to making accusations one way or the other, or even paying attention to the usual uber-right claptrap that's poisoning our society....
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
My thoughts on Dean: A progressive (read: socialist) liberal who's trying to disguise himself as a centrist. Luckily he wont get elected, but the thought that such a fringe candidate can get so much momentum is frightening for the future of this country.
Quite possibly one of the most misinformed statements I've ever encountered concerning Dean. Educate yourself, starting here-

Linkie
Anyone using that article as "education" about Dean needs to raise the bar a little bit. A lot of misstatements in that article the most blatant being that Dean started the "rainy day fund". Pure and utter bullshit. All you have to do is see the date it was put into law. There's more, less blatant BS but it doesn't really matter. Dean already ruined any chance of election when he said taxes needed to be raised. If he gets the nomination that's all the Republicans need to defeat him. It's too bad too. If he had just learned when to keep his mouth shut he might have actually had a chance.
Taxes need to be raised back to Clinton years. We are running huge deficits, and economy has already rebounded. There is no reason to kick in economic stimulus all the way up to 2010 for a recession that ended in 2002-2003. Now is the time to balance the budget and prepare for baby boomer retirement. Of course, the republicans want to wait till high interest rates come before they do anything on the deficit. I know it must be a stretch for you rightwingers that a candidate is presenting a fiscally responsible plan, and you very well might be right that American people are nearsighted enough to buy the GOP tax cut rhetoric, but Dean is right, and he should stick to his guns even if it costs him the election. If the American people want to elect a fiscally irresponsible candidate offering them high government spending with low taxes, then Dean is not the guy.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I don't think people would mind higher taxes if they saw something back for thier "investment". The nations infrastructure kinda sucks, the schools could use more and we need some major program to straighten out lawlessnes and graffiti in our cities. Basically even dollar we are using to rebuild Iraq should be used here. Maybe we should move there when it's all pretty again:p
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't think people would mind higher taxes if they saw something back for thier "investment". The nations infrastructure kinda sucks, the schools could use more and we need some major program to straighten out lawlessnes and graffiti in our cities. Basically even dollar we are using to rebuild Iraq should be used here. Maybe we should move there when it's all pretty again:p
I would not mind paying higher taxes if i did not think the goverment would waste the money.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't think people would mind higher taxes if they saw something back for thier "investment". The nations infrastructure kinda sucks, the schools could use more and we need some major program to straighten out lawlessnes and graffiti in our cities. Basically even dollar we are using to rebuild Iraq should be used here. Maybe we should move there when it's all pretty again:p
I would not mind paying higher taxes if i did not think the goverment would waste the money.
LOL. So we should only have to pay taxes if the government is perfect?
I guess if I eat at a restaurant and then decide I don't like the food, I can just walk out and not pay for it.
It's our government, we gotta pay for it. You have a chance to change it with your vote. The only way you are going to get politicians to stop wasting money is by linking taxes with spending. If every time a politician votes for pork he has to go to his constituents with a tax hike, he'll think twice about doing it. If he can just put it on the tab and let someone else worry about it later, he won't even think once.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't think people would mind higher taxes if they saw something back for thier "investment". The nations infrastructure kinda sucks, the schools could use more and we need some major program to straighten out lawlessnes and graffiti in our cities. Basically even dollar we are using to rebuild Iraq should be used here. Maybe we should move there when it's all pretty again:p
I would not mind paying higher taxes if i did not think the goverment would waste the money.
LOL. So we should only have to pay taxes if the government is perfect?
I guess if I eat at a restaurant and then decide I don't like the food, I can just walk out and not pay for it.
It's our government, we gotta pay for it. You have a chance to change it with your vote. The only way you are going to get politicians to stop wasting money is by linking taxes with spending. If every time a politician votes for pork he has to go to his constituents with a tax hike, he'll think twice about doing it. If he can just put it on the tab and let someone else worry about it later, he won't even think once.
If I dont like a restaurant, I pay for the food and dont go there again. Bad analogly. The federal goverment is too large.

Yes lets link spending to taxes. Lets have a flat tax so all citizens have to pay their fair shair. The poor have no problem voting to pick the pockets of the middle class and wealthy.

Let there be a flat tax and watch the spending in washington drop.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Rather than reading CAD's propaganda and blatant misrepresentations, along with Ultra's usual vague disclaimers, try this link for Dean's stand on labor, which was up and running long before the Hardball misunderstanding-

Dean

Nothing's changed, we all have a slip of the tongue now and then. Might want to reference the rest of the site for Dean's stand on other issues, too, prior to making accusations one way or the other, or even paying attention to the usual uber-right claptrap that's poisoning our society....
"misunderstanding"? WTF? I don't see how -
"I hate right-to-work laws."
,
MATTHEWS: So you wouldn?t repeal 14B?
DEAN: No, I would not, but...
, and
"If I got a bill on my desk that repealed 14B, I?d sign it in an instant."
are "misunderstandings" - not to mention the BS he spewed about being for states rights when 14B does exactly that - gives the states the right to make "right to work" laws.

So yes - what he said on Hardball was VERY much a picture of his views on Labor.

Hehe - keep up your little name calling rants and little quips about "right wing" and "Uber-Right" - you and a few others here are highly entertaining when you continuously post such things:D

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
So, uhh, what transpired there on Hardball was a politician dealing with reality, balancing his own desires against the possibles. Yes, he's obviously pro-labor, and no, attempting to repeal 14b violates states rights and is impossible, anyway.

The changes he does propose, however, go a long way towards protecting the right to unionize. Might actually read the linked pages, won't kill you, might make your head hurt, though...

Lucky-

In right to work states, union shops don't exist- enrollment is voluntary, but companies must pay non-union guys the same as union workers. So the union negotiates the package, maybe even strikes to get an acceptable deal, while the non union guys just keep on working, reap the same benifits as the guys who pay dues and strike when necessary.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, what transpired there on Hardball was a politician dealing with reality, balancing his own desires against the possibles. Yes, he's obviously pro-labor, and no, attempting to repeal 14b violates states rights and is impossible, anyway.

The changes he does propose, however, go a long way towards protecting the right to unionize. Might actually read the linked pages, won't kill you, might make your head hurt, though...
The right to unionize already exists.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
"misunderstanding"? WTF? I don't see how..... -
thanks CKG. You saved me time, I was about to do the same thing myself. No misunderstanding, just blatant stupidity.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Rather than reading CAD's propaganda and blatant misrepresentations, along with Ultra's usual vague disclaimers, try this link for Dean's stand on labor, which was up and running long before the Hardball misunderstanding-

Dean

Nothing's changed, we all have a slip of the tongue now and then. Might want to reference the rest of the site for Dean's stand on other issues, too, prior to making accusations one way or the other, or even paying attention to the usual uber-right claptrap that's poisoning our society....
So my statement's vague. I guess if you don't have enough neurons to understand 'bullshit' then it would seem vague to you.

Speaking of bullshit. From the link to Howies little website:

To restore economic growth, we need to strengthen the right to unionize here at home and enforce international labor standards abroad.
The whole page was obvious pandering to organized labor but I would be interested to know how he plans on enforcing those international labor standards.


 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, what transpired there on Hardball was a politician dealing with reality, balancing his own desires against the possibles. Yes, he's obviously pro-labor, and no, attempting to repeal 14b violates states rights and is impossible, anyway.

The changes he does propose, however, go a long way towards protecting the right to unionize. Might actually read the linked pages, won't kill you, might make your head hurt, though...
The right to unionize already exists.

Unfortunately there is no national right to not unionize at your employer of choice.

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
The whole page was obvious pandering to organized labor but I would be interested to know how he plans on enforcing those international labor standards.
With trade sanctions and tariffs, obviously.

So, uhh, first you contended that he was making contradictory statements about unions, but on further review you've decided that he's pandering? Or maybe you'd allow that Matthews didn't allow for him to elaborate?

None of the articles I've seen concerning the appearance on Hardball even mention the Labor thing- seems to be more of CAD's emphasis than anybody else's. Maybe I should consult the Weekly Standard for something unbiased... Yeh, right...


Boston Globe
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole page was obvious pandering to organized labor but I would be interested to know how he plans on enforcing those international labor standards.
With trade sanctions and tariffs, obviously.

So, uhh, first you contended that he was making contradictory statements about unions, but on further review you've decided that he's pandering? Or maybe you'd allow that Matthews didn't allow for him to elaborate?

None of the articles I've seen concerning the appearance on Hardball even mention the Labor thing- seems to be more of CAD's emphasis than anybody else's. Maybe I should consult the Weekly Standard for something unbiased... Yeh, right...


Boston Globe
From my OP:
WOW!!! I can't believe the press hasn't picked up on this part of the interview. They keep yapping about his skiing and deferment, or about his sealed records in Vermont - all the while ignoring a big domestic policy position!
I'm not the one who's emphasising Unions - Dean is. He's out there waving his Union endorsements(as is Gephardt) yet the news doesn't pick up his comments concerning Unions. Seems to me that Dean should "get" this press since he enjoys the "press" from his union rally stumps.

CkG
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Why is it the same people who complain about unions, wefare, SS, education spending, enviroment etc etc etc are always the same...and more importantly why are they living here? There are plenty of places in the world closer to thier "vision" that don't have unions, any welfare sytem, no public schools, no social security etc. Could it be all those are third-world-sh1t-holes that they would'nt be caught dead in even over the eval "socialist" european countries?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Good posts however regardless of who is in Office or gets in Office the incentive for Corporations to be Corrupt has to be changed. There used to be a saying "Good Corporate Citizen", in fact the AT Experts in here continuously "stump" for the Corporate Execs that they have the right to pilage the Country. When did it change that Corporations moved from being held to the same standard as a Citizen to being above Citizens?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Good posts however regardless of who is in Office or gets in Office the incentive for Corporations to be Corrupt has to be changed. There used to be a saying "Good Corporate Citizen", in fact the AT Experts in here continuously "stump" for the Corporate Execs that they have the right to pilage the Country. When did it change that Corporations moved from being held to the same standard as a Citizen to being above Citizens?
Corporations started around Lincolns time. He warned us calling them "new form of tyranny"... certainly a move away from equality and freedom of the individual this country was founded on and tward the freedom of corporation since then. IMO thier goal from Iraq to Brazil, and they control government, using the military is to make the envrioment free for them to practice (which is all those things neo-cons hate like right to organize) while bankrupting the USA eventually doing away with all progressive programs here..so we will in effect be wage slaves..happy to have a full tummy. Is that doomsday enough for ya?

You should read the PNAC. it talks about the desirable conditions we'd like to see..I have no clue what these have to do with national security..but i see benefit to our multinaionals. Here some of the objectives discussed and advocated:
-Free trade.
-A regulatory environment that is "pro business, pro entrepreneur and pro investment".
-Minimal social spending.
-Lower progressive tax rates.

What business are social and economic policies of third world countries to us? Unless it's red china who uses slave labor and cracks heads of organizers..notice our governemnt has no problem trading and exploiting with them..media never even blip the conditions on the radar.. nor do corporate controlled politicans mention it...Well it's all in there and moving ahead nicely.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Good posts however regardless of who is in Office or gets in Office the incentive for Corporations to be Corrupt has to be changed. There used to be a saying "Good Corporate Citizen", in fact the AT Experts in here continuously "stump" for the Corporate Execs that they have the right to pilage the Country. When did it change that Corporations moved from being held to the same standard as a Citizen to being above Citizens?
Corporations started around Lincolns time. He warned us calling them "new form of tyranny"... certainly a move away from equality and freedom of the individual this country was founded on and tward the freedom of corporation since then. IMO thier goal from Iraq to Brazil, and they control government, using the military is to make the envrioment free for them to practice (which is all those things neo-cons hate like right to organize) while bankrupting the USA eventually doing away with all progressive programs here..so we will in effect be wage slaves..happy to have a full tummy. Is that doomsday enough for ya?

You should read the PNAC. it talks about the desirable conditions we'd like to see..I have no clue what these have to do with national security..but i see benefit to our multinaionals. Here some of the objectives discussed and advocated:
-Free trade.
-A regulatory environment that is "pro business, pro entrepreneur and pro investment".
-Minimal social spending.
-Lower progressive tax rates.

What business are social and economic policies of third world countries to us? Unless it's red china who uses slave labor and cracks heads of organizers..notice our governemnt has no problem trading and exploiting with them..media never even blip the conditions on the radar.. nor do corporate controlled politicans mention it...Well it's all in there and moving ahead nicely.

The PNAC is an organization so I'm not sure how to "read" them but if you have a specific document that they've published that talks about those things please link to it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY