You All Screwed Yourselves!!

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by Char, Nov 1, 2007.

  1. Mystakilla

    Mystakilla Who the *$#@ cares.

    WOW, i would actually have to agree with you for once on a topic. :biggrin:
     
  2. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned


    No it wasnt ********, NAFTA and CAFTA has been a dream of the Republicans since Reagan was in office. Although it failed miserably during BUSH 1, the republicans in the house and senate MODIFIED the bill in a spirit of compromise under a VETO threat by CLINTON, and collectively the bill was changed to the version that is in action today.

    The argument then was simple, the democrats in the house and senate knew that American companies would eventually leave the country and exploit third world countries.

    The Republicans countered that the program was only to allow mexico to export more products DUTYFREE and enhance their economy.

    The rouse was to make everyone believe that NAFTA and its sister PLAN CAFTA was indeed a way to make foriegn countries more stable economically.

    Unfortunately, it hasnt worked out that way.

    Indeed, American Companies by the hundreds have fled to mexico and are now exporting products to the USA DUTYFREE.

    This has done absolutely nothing for the mexican ecomomy.

    Mexicans by the millions are fleeing the country and coming here to work for bigger paychecks and FREE benefits that WE the people pay as a subsidizing of the American Corporate Greed machine.

    the only way to fix it??? Buy American.

    Peace.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 4, 2007
  3. Char

    Char New Member

    Again not to perpetuate a politcal debate, but the Republicans and the Democrats have us the people right where they want us. If people weren't so concerned about beating the other side they would realize that they are pulling a two card monty. They are both the same side of 1 coin. NAFTA started by Republicans and completely passed by Democrats.

    Lets take the 08 elections and the Iraq War. The Republicans say to stay the course, the Dems say out of Iraq now. All 3 major Dems refused to guarantee withdrawl by the end of their first term. If all 3 believe they were lied to and mislead and that it is such an illegal and immoral war and Americans want the war to end right now, they would have no problem pledging to bring them in right after being sworn in. Hell, the Dems hold both houses of Congress, if they really believed the war is illegal and immoral they could vote to cut all funding.

    If people want out of Iraq like the media and Dems claim they do why is Hillary running away with the nomination. If that were really true Kucinich would winning despite his troll like appearance. The fact of the matter is that Dems will not pull out. Hillary told a womans group before the war vote "I have spoken with people that I trust and know whats going on over in Iraq, and I will vote to invade Iraq." Then on the Senate floor said "This is the hardest vote I ever had to make, BUT I CAST IT WITH CONVICTION." When Saddam Hussein was captured she said, "I supported going into Iraq to overthrow Saddam." Then, later on she says on the campaign trail "if Bush doesn't pull the troops out by 2009 I will!!!" She said "Bush lied and mislead me about Iraq" Then at a debate refused to pledge to withdraw troops by 2013. Please explain to me why she is running away with the nomination. They want Bush to pull out in order to beat Bush and straddle defeat around his neck. They wanted him to pull out before the 08 elections. Do you really think the Democrats are gonna leave while they hold power so defeat can be straddled around their neck. The opposition to Iraq had one purpose... to defeat George W. Bush since he has quite frankly outclassed all of his political opposition. With all the supposed scandels the Dems tried to create against Bush, not 1 has stuck.

    Its no different with Teamsters and UPS. Those that run the show want their power. the union bosses that run Teamsters want the power you have handed over to them. The power to collect your union dues, the power to decide your healthcare, pensions, and wages. They must limit what you get, otherwise why would we still need them.

    Char
     
  4. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    "Lets take the 08 elections and the Iraq War. The Republicans say to stay the course, the Dems say out of Iraq now. All 3 major Dems refused to guarantee withdrawl by the end of their first term. If all 3 believe they were lied to and mislead and that it is such an illegal and immoral war and Americans want the war to end right now, they would have no problem pledging to bring them in right after being sworn in. Hell, the Dems hold both houses of Congress, if they really believed the war is illegal and immoral they could vote to cut all funding.

    Hillary told a womans group before the war vote "I have spoken with people that I trust and know whats going on over in Iraq, and I will vote to invade Iraq." Then on the Senate floor said "This is the hardest vote I ever had to make, BUT I CAST IT WITH CONVICTION." When Saddam Hussein was captured she said, "I supported going into Iraq to overthrow Saddam." Then, later on she says on the campaign trail "if Bush doesn't pull the troops out by 2009 I will!!!" She said "Bush lied and mislead me about Iraq" Then at a debate refused to pledge to withdraw troops by 2013. Please explain to me why she is running away with the nomination. They want Bush to pull out in order to beat Bush and straddle defeat around his neck. They wanted him to pull out before the 08 elections. Do you really think the Democrats are gonna leave while they hold power so defeat can be straddled around their neck. The opposition to Iraq had one purpose... to defeat George W. Bush since he has quite frankly outclassed all of his political opposition. With all the supposed scandels the Dems tried to create against Bush, not 1 has stuck.

    Char[/quote]


    CHAR,

    While I could debate this issue to death and type endless facts and figures that would choke a horse..let me just piece in a respond to a few of your statements.

    First, let me say that it is clear from your syntax and positions that you are a Rush Limbaugh listener. Your positions are clearly his positions, almost word for word. While he can be an entertaining guy, he is far from a journalist and according to the Harvard School of Law who recently did a fact check on him for an entire month, found that he is only 66% accurate in what he says, and most of the time he either embellishes or distorts facts and uses extreme repetition to make the listener believe what he is saying are facts.

    I would recommend that you expand your resources and do more reading and fact checking rather than depend on Rushes one sided, ideological, tainted,distorted rational of American history.

    That being said, let me move on to your points that I am having trouble with.

    you wrote: "The opposition to Iraq had one purpose... to defeat George W. Bush since he has quite frankly outclassed all of his political opposition."

    GW has embarrased himself to not only the American Public, but to the world itself. Prior to his taking office, the American President was the highest rated leader in the world. Second to none. At the same time, the three top hated leaders were:
    1)Fidel Castro
    2)Kim jung il
    3)Hugo Chavez

    Today, President Bush tops the list of the worlds most hated leader. Over Chavez, Kim jung il and Castro.

    So I dont know where you get the "outclassed" part of your point, but he wont be missed when hes gone from power.

    Second, you wrote: "They wanted him to pull out before the 08 elections. Do you really think the Democrats are gonna leave while they hold power so defeat can be straddled around their neck."

    My friend, we can debate this war if you wish, I am ready to provide all that is needed to embarass anyone who wants to justify this war, but for your point of hanging DEFEAT around the necks of Democrats,...

    Well, that my friend was done along time ago to GW Bush by none other than Gen. Colin Powell who told Bush prior to this war "If you break it , you bought it!"

    Defeat was hung aroung GW's neck before it even began. You see, defeat has many faces, and those faces are easily forgotten by propaganda.

    Defeat 1- NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
    Defeat 2- NO ALQIEDA CAMPS IN IRAQ PRIOR TO WAR
    Defeat 3- PEACE IN IRAQ
    Defeat 4- ONLY A COUPLE OF HUNDRED TROOPS EXPECTED KILLED
    Defeat 5- COST OF WAR TO BE AROUND 66 BILLION OVER THREE YEARS
    Defeat 6- MIDDLE EAST WILL STABILIZE ONCE IRAQ IS CONQUERED
    Defeat 7- WAR WILL NOT TAKE LONGER THAN THREE YEARS

    These FACTS add up to defeat no matter what the outcome, and they hang around GW's neck like a 50 ton elephant.

    With almost 4000 service people killed already and an average of 1000 a year and with a projection from BUSH himself that we need to stay there 10 more years, thats 14000 service people dead.

    USSR lost 15000 soldiers in a 7 year war with Afghanistan.

    For me, I dont justify the loss of 14000 service personnel for a bunch of oil men looking for huge profits in the IRAQI desert.

    Remember this slogan for your beloved republicans next time your at the ballot box deciding who will win the war on terror:

    "The Republicans, the people who brought you Osama Bin Laden"

    Paid for by the Reagan administration and the CIA, middle east envoys Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, with legal advice given by James A. Baker.

    Peace.
     
  5. browned out

    browned out Well-Known Member


    CHAR,

    While I could debate this issue to death and type endless facts and figures that would choke a horse..let me just piece in a respond to a few of your statements.

    First, let me say that it is clear from your syntax and positions that you are a Rush Limbaugh listener. Your positions are clearly his positions, almost word for word. While he can be an entertaining guy, he is far from a journalist and according to the Harvard School of Law who recently did a fact check on him for an entire month, found that he is only 66% accurate in what he says, and most of the time he either embellishes or distorts facts and uses extreme repetition to make the listener believe what he is saying are facts.

    I would recommend that you expand your resources and do more reading and fact checking rather than depend on Rushes one sided, ideological, tainted,distorted rational of American history.

    That being said, let me move on to your points that I am having trouble with.

    you wrote: "The opposition to Iraq had one purpose... to defeat George W. Bush since he has quite frankly outclassed all of his political opposition."

    GW has embarrased himself to not only the American Public, but to the world itself. Prior to his taking office, the American President was the highest rated leader in the world. Second to none. At the same time, the three top hated leaders were:
    1)Fidel Castro
    2)Kim jung il
    3)Hugo Chavez

    Today, President Bush tops the list of the worlds most hated leader. Over Chavez, Kim jung il and Castro.

    So I dont know where you get the "outclassed" part of your point, but he wont be missed when hes gone from power.

    Second, you wrote: "They wanted him to pull out before the 08 elections. Do you really think the Democrats are gonna leave while they hold power so defeat can be straddled around their neck."

    My friend, we can debate this war if you wish, I am ready to provide all that is needed to embarass anyone who wants to justify this war, but for your point of hanging DEFEAT around the necks of Democrats,...

    Well, that my friend was done along time ago to GW Bush by none other than Gen. Colin Powell who told Bush prior to this war "If you break it , you bought it!"

    Defeat was hung aroung GW's neck before it even began. You see, defeat has many faces, and those faces are easily forgotten by propaganda.

    Defeat 1- NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
    Defeat 2- NO ALQIEDA CAMPS IN IRAQ PRIOR TO WAR
    Defeat 3- PEACE IN IRAQ
    Defeat 4- ONLY A COUPLE OF HUNDRED TROOPS EXPECTED KILLED
    Defeat 5- COST OF WAR TO BE AROUND 66 BILLION OVER THREE YEARS
    Defeat 6- MIDDLE EAST WILL STABILIZE ONCE IRAQ IS CONQUERED
    Defeat 7- WAR WILL NOT TAKE LONGER THAN THREE YEARS

    These FACTS add up to defeat no matter what the outcome, and they hang around GW's neck like a 50 ton elephant.

    With almost 4000 service people killed already and an average of 1000 a year and with a projection from BUSH himself that we need to stay there 10 more years, thats 14000 service people dead.

    USSR lost 15000 soldiers in a 7 year war with Afghanistan.

    For me, I dont justify the loss of 14000 service personnel for a bunch of oil men looking for huge profits in the IRAQI desert.

    Remember this slogan for your beloved republicans next time your at the ballot box deciding who will win the war on terror:

    "The Republicans, the people who brought you Osama Bin Laden"

    Paid for by the Reagan administration and the CIA, middle east envoys Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, with legal advice given by James A. Baker.

    Peace.[/quote]


    Unless those Harvard folks are lying. You know as Rush states all the hippies are in control of our colleges.

    Must be cause they are or were hippies. None of them could possibly be as educated and as astute or is it estute or astupitd as Rush. (give the :w00t:fat boy a few more rx's)
     
  6. browned out

    browned out Well-Known Member

    Unless those Harvard folks are lying. You know as Rush states all the hippies are in control of our colleges.

    Must be cause they are or were hippies. None of them could possibly be as educated and as astute or is it estute or astupitd as Rush. (give the fat boy a few more rx's)[/quote]:w00t:
     
  7. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I got a few calls from them today. their saying someone took a bathrobe, 3 towels and a usa today from them.:cool:
     
  8. Pollocknbrown

    Pollocknbrown Member


    Everyone takes the towels from the hotels, bathrobes, if it was nice, and a USA today? so they lost about.....10-15 bux?
     
  9. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    You argue with passion and I hope you'll stay once the single issue that brought you here subsides but in this case I would have to disagree. Who got the credit / blame for trickle down economics Kennedy who was the first president to suggest it or Reagan who implemented it?
     
  10. Cole

    Cole New Member

    To my understanding it was first started by Carter who is by no means a Republican, and pushed through by Clinton, again not a Republican. That said, no doubt the Rep's were all for it in a big way. Both parties have helped erose US jobs to make it easier to send them overv seas, and don't think they're not getting something for supporting these bills.imo anyway.

    As far as Bush getting us into wars etc...I think 9-11 started that, and I don't think we should sit on our laurels and just hope we wont get attacked again, as our enemies out there are plotting everyday. I do think we need to have some type of exit for Iraq, but I do think ridding the world of the Butcher of Bagdad, and his murderous sons is a good thing. Also I have a friend whose father was assassinatd by Saddam.

    I guess that's why I consider myself independant, because I vote the individual, and their record etc...and I have beliefs and views I support on both sides etc....

    I certainly see dark days ahead as far as war, rumors of wars etc...And now back to the topic.
     
  11. Cole

    Cole New Member

    I thought they were free. lol
     
  12. Char

    Char New Member

    Somehow this has spun into a war debate which wasnt my intention. I didn't even take a position on the Iraq war and yet I am getting the anti war arguments shoved down my throat. Which helps prove my point about how they both play us.

    I simply used the two parties as an example of how teamsters and ups play us.
    Think of the company as republicans and the teamsters and democrats.

    The teamsters say the company is evil and you NEED us. (not true)
    The democrats say we will get us out of Iraq now . (not true)

    The company says theres not enough money for everything. (partially true) Also egg on union members by being aceholes to perpetuate the teamsters position as us needing teamsters. (we all know this part is true)
    Republicans say we gonna stay in iraq and egg on the opposition by escalating it. (true)

    Meanwhile, behind closed doors, The reps and the dems slap each other on the ass because they keep the people arguing at each other with each side not really caring what their side does to win. They all get to do their backroom deals to collect illegal money and favors. More importantly, they take a little more freedom and power from us.

    Its the same for teamsters and ups. They are slapping each other on theair ass because ups pays a little less and regains some control and the teamsters say this is the best contract ever and you NEED us. More importantly they take a little more power from us to keep up their backroom deals.

    Surely you all see this in Washington and at work.

    Char
     
  13. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Hey Diesel, these guys are really putting us to shame. We gotta step up pal and go into intense training to stay up with these guys! I don't dare dip my toe in their water!

    :lol::thumbup:
     
  14. BrownShark2

    BrownShark2 Guest

    Cole,

    No disrespect intended, but your recollections about carter and NAFTA are incorrect. Do a google search on NAFTA and the primary writers of the bill.

    NO DEMOCRAT would encourage ANY American company to leave the country and outsource its operations and cost the American labor force it livelyhood of employment.

    This has and always will be the capitalist mentality of those who support the Republican party and its "trickle down theories" on how money is generated.

    FACTS:
    NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).[5] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[6]

    **
    Cole, clearly I have established the truth to what i originally posted in response to CHARS assertions that the Democrats were resonsible for NAFTA.. Its the propaganda of people like Rush Limbaugh who make false statements on a daily basis that get individuals such as CHAR to repeat this disinformation.

    Unlike Reagan and Bush1, they did all they could to import all the foreign vehicles to our shores causing the US domestic automakers to crumble up to and including the fall of chrysler. Yes I know, quality was horrible, but no one in these administrations were mandating that they do anything about it. FACT, prior to Reagan, the US domestic automakers held 74% of market share. After Reagan, the Japanese held 77% of market share here in the US.

    During Bush1, the japanese and european importers held 83% of market share.

    When Clinton took office, one of the very first pieces of trade actions he took was to LIMIT the amount of imported cars that came to our country. He made agreements with the japanese companies that said if they wanted to sell more cars in the USA, then they had to build them here. Otherwise, they couldnt import them by the millions like during Reagan and Bush1.

    This had led to thousands of jobs created. During his 8 years in office, the Domestic automakers regained market share here and rose to 76%.

    Today, like his father and his mentor Reagan, Bush2 has driven the US automakers to the brink of disaster and market share is now plunging to near 60%.

    Once again, the foreign car makers are dominating the auto industry here in the states and with the high cost of fuel nearing 100 dollars a barrel as we speak and gas per gallon going to $4.00 by december1 2008, we shall see our big three driven out of business.

    Cole, fact check my friend. Its a good tool. And CHAR, lighten up on the Rush Limbaugh man, your viewpoints on IRAQ are laughable.

    Peace.
     
  15. Cole

    Cole New Member

    Say what you will, but NAFTA while Clinton was in office, and the Unions and his Admin had major disagreements.

    Bottom line is whoever fills their pockets the most gets their bill supported.
     
  16. KTB

    KTB New Member

    But they did. Democrats selling out labor is one of the major untold stories of the 90s. Clinton was an avid free trader, and he used his popularity to push it. Do another Google search involving "WTO" and "Seattle". That was during the Clinton administration, and the AFL-CIO involvement was due to Clinton's free trade agenda.

    Just to clarify, I do not vote Republican. That doesn't mean that every Democrat is good. There are far too many Dems who have a proven track record of throwing labor under the bus. Sorry to just jump in there, but it's one of my pet peeves.
     
  17. Louie2008

    Louie2008 New Member

    vOTE no FOR CONTRACT 2008

    UPS just give us their first offer but that doesn't mean its going to be their last. Reject vote no and trying to convince UPS that we want a much better contract. We should get a full raise every year.

    Our benefits are good and pension is good but our raise for we part timers need to be better than 70 cents first year. Instead of going forward were going backwards. This contract looks more like the 1997 one than the 2002. Im not saying it has to be better than the 2002 but just give us some type of raise simiar to that. I would settle for a 5 dollar raise in the five year contract. Get a dollar a raise from the get go.
     
  18. BrownShark2

    BrownShark2 Guest

    KTB,

    The WTO was NOT created by Clinton out of thin air.. Since 1947, THE GATT act had been in place, the GATT was the initial World Trade Order, in 1992 in a new round of discussions with world leaders over rules and policies, the WTO was formed.

    This hardly puts the blame squarely on the Democrats or Clinton. He was only one of several world leaders involved.

    FACT CHECK:
    Well before GATT's 40th anniversary, its members concluded that the GATT system was straining to adapt to a new globalizing world economy.[13] In response to the problems identified in the 1982 Ministerial Declaration (structural deficiencies, spill-over impacts of certain countries' policies on world trade GATT could not manage etc.), the eighth GATT round — known as the Uruguay Round — was launched in September 1986, in Punta del Este, Uruguay.[14] It was the biggest negotiating mandate on trade ever agreed: the talks were going to extend the trading system into several new areas, notably trade in services and intellectual property, and to reform trade in the sensitive sectors of agriculture and textiles; all the original GATT articles were up for review.[15]

    The round was supposed to end in December 1990, but the US and EU disagreed on how to reform agricultural trade and decided to extend the talks.[16] Finally, In November 1992, the US and EU settled most of their differences in a deal known informally as "the Blair House accord", and on April 15, 1994, the deal was signed by ministers from most of the 123 participating governments at a meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco.[17] The agreement established the World Trade Organization, which came into being upon its entry into force on January 1, 1995, and replaced GATT as an international organization.[15] It is widely regarded as the most profound institutional reform of the world trading system since the GATT's establishment.[18]


    During the Doha Round, the US government blamed Brazil and India for being inflexible, and the EU for impeding agricultural imports.[19] President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, responded to the criticisms arguing that progress will be only achieved if the richest countries (especially the US and EU) make deeper cuts in their agricultural subsidies, and open further their markets for agricultural goods.[20]The GATT still exists as the WTO's umbrella treaty for trade in goods, updated as a result of the Uruguay Round negotiations (a distinction is made between GATT 1994, the updated parts of GATT, and GATT 1947, the original agreement which is still the heart of GATT 1994).[13] The GATT 1994 is not however the only legally binding agreement included in the Final Act; a long list of about 60 agreements, annexes, decisions and understandings was adopted. In fact, the agreements fall into a simple structure with six main parts:

    an umbrella agreement (the Agreement Establishing the WTO);
    agreements for each of the three broad areas of trade that the WTO covers: goods and investment (the Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods including the GATT 1994 and the TRIMS), services (GATS), and intellectual property (TRIPS);
    dispute settlement (DSU); and
    reviews of governments' trade policies (TPRM).[21]

    ****end fact check

    You see, world trade is a big issue. There are trade offs that affect us positively and negatively. I particularly dont care for the WTO and its current policies as they dont do enough to insure that third world countries pay their people a living wage.

    The next president of the United States will participate in the next round of talks with the WTO.

    Peace.
     
  19. Cole

    Cole New Member

    None of those bills would be a problem if these companies were going there to bring standards up, rather than trying to pay pathetic wages and benefits, with few if any environmental protections. We or at least I can say I want to see these other nations peoples standards of living improved, just not exploited.
     
  20. Cole

    Cole New Member

    Carter on NAFTA

    From,
    http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/

    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. It was/is a bipartisan effort.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2007