Conquer Club

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwLW08DJaL8


He's the best president of all time. But did he make these statements because he knows that Congress is too stupid to put it all together? Also, is it not awesome that a minority of economists have begun predicting a boom in American production and an end to the recession? Dude Obama is a hero. He's like America's Batman. I love the fact that he's targeting companies like Apple by saying that he's not going to spend our money to protect their Chinese manufacturing.

<3


Also?
761 views - SAD

So now Obama is praising Boeing when he was the one who tried to prevent them from creating jobs in other states? Pure politics right there.

Night Strike wrote:So now Obama is praising Boeing when he was the one who tried to prevent them from creating jobs in other states? Pure politics right there.

Yeah it looks like Boeing is really hurting.

Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwLW08DJaL8


He's the best president of all time. But did he make these statements because he knows that Congress is too stupid to put it all together? Also, is it not awesome that a minority of economists have begun predicting a boom in American production and an end to the recession? Dude Obama is a hero. He's like America's Batman. I love the fact that he's targeting companies like Apple by saying that he's not going to spend our money to protect their Chinese manufacturing.

<3


Also?
761 views - SAD

Considering he had Steve Jobs' widow at his latest State of the Union, I suspect he's playing politics.

It's a good political move, although I struggle with the president's definitions here (not in the video, in his proposals). First, he raises a lot of rhetoric about keeping jobs in the United States, but there are various reasons why jobs are going outside the United States and punishing companies that are both here and in foreign countries will not help keep jobs here (in my humble opinion). Second, he talks a lot about tax loopholes, which annoys me when those laws were put in place for specific reasons by specific people (loophole suggests some malfeasance on the part of the companies; malfeasance, if any, belongs on both sides).

I haven't read anything in this thread or watched the video, but what kind of tax benefits were ducks getting prior to Obama's Administration?

Follow up question, how do ducks traditionally vote? Is most of the duck turn out for Republicans or Democrats?

Mallards are generally Republican. Wood ducks tend to vote Democrat.

I fed some bread crumbs to mallards a few years ago.

ARE YOU SAYING REPUBLICANS ACCEPT HANDOUTS???

natty dread wrote:I fed some bread crumbs to mallards a few years ago.

ARE YOU SAYING REPUBLICANS ACCEPT HANDOUTS???

They're the number one states for handouts. Almost all red states receive more federal aid $$$ than they pay in federal taxes. It's weird how stupid Republicans are.


Ducks can't vote 'cause most of them live in Canada and/or Mexico for half the year. They're just more illegal Aliens. In Alabama all police officers have been deputized with the authority to stop any duck who does not look American.

Night Strike wrote:So now Obama is praising Boeing when he was the one who tried to prevent them from creating jobs in other states? Pure politics right there.

As long as you equate "Barack Obama" with "established laws that protect worker's ability to strike," then yes. The President (or something) of Boeing said he was considering moving to South Carolina because of strikes at the existing plant. That's against the law. Barack Obama is not the law. You fail.

spurgistan wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So now Obama is praising Boeing when he was the one who tried to prevent them from creating jobs in other states? Pure politics right there.

As long as you equate "Barack Obama" with "established laws that protect worker's ability to strike," then yes. The President (or something) of Boeing said he was considering moving to South Carolina because of strikes at the existing plant. That's against the law. Barack Obama is not the law. You fail.

Is it really against the law? I'm not so sure about that.

Do you know why Boeing wanted to move to South Carolina (I mean apart from "because of the strikes")?

um lol

The Bison King wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So now Obama is praising Boeing when he was the one who tried to prevent them from creating jobs in other states? Pure politics right there.

Yeah it looks like Boeing is really hurting.

That's not the point. Obama put union goons on the National Labor Relations Board (Conflict Of Interest) and then stood silent while his hired goons stood in the way of freedom.

thegreekdog wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So now Obama is praising Boeing when he was the one who tried to prevent them from creating jobs in other states? Pure politics right there.

As long as you equate "Barack Obama" with "established laws that protect worker's ability to strike," then yes. The President (or something) of Boeing said he was considering moving to South Carolina because of strikes at the existing plant. That's against the law. Barack Obama is not the law. You fail.

Is it really against the law? I'm not so sure about that.

Do you know why Boeing wanted to move to South Carolina (I mean apart from "because of the strikes")?

NYTimes, 4/26/2011 wrote:The N.L.R.B.’s case rests on statements by Boeing officials that, it believes, prove retaliation. One Boeing executive told The Seattle Times that the main reason to put the new line in South Carolina was “that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.”

I'm sure there are other factors, but that is why the NLRB filed suit. You can't retaliate against workers for striking. I feel like this got resolved when no actual jobs in Washington got cut.

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So now Obama is praising Boeing when he was the one who tried to prevent them from creating jobs in other states? Pure politics right there.

As long as you equate "Barack Obama" with "established laws that protect worker's ability to strike," then yes. The President (or something) of Boeing said he was considering moving to South Carolina because of strikes at the existing plant. That's against the law. Barack Obama is not the law. You fail.

Is it really against the law? I'm not so sure about that.

Do you know why Boeing wanted to move to South Carolina (I mean apart from "because of the strikes")?

NYTimes, 4/26/2011 wrote:The N.L.R.B.’s case rests on statements by Boeing officials that, it believes, prove retaliation. One Boeing executive told The Seattle Times that the main reason to put the new line in South Carolina was “that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.”

It's only illegal if they were closing the union plant in favor of opening a non-union plant. They were simply opening a NEW plant in a non-union area, but the union got jealous that they weren't opening it under the union rules. They were looking to ADD jobs, but since they weren't going to be union jobs, the union didn't want it opened.

Night Strike wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So now Obama is praising Boeing when he was the one who tried to prevent them from creating jobs in other states? Pure politics right there.

As long as you equate "Barack Obama" with "established laws that protect worker's ability to strike," then yes. The President (or something) of Boeing said he was considering moving to South Carolina because of strikes at the existing plant. That's against the law. Barack Obama is not the law. You fail.

Is it really against the law? I'm not so sure about that.

Do you know why Boeing wanted to move to South Carolina (I mean apart from "because of the strikes")?

NYTimes, 4/26/2011 wrote:The N.L.R.B.’s case rests on statements by Boeing officials that, it believes, prove retaliation. One Boeing executive told The Seattle Times that the main reason to put the new line in South Carolina was “that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.”

It's only illegal if they were closing the union plant in favor of opening a non-union plant. They were simply opening a NEW plant in a non-union area, but the union got jealous that they weren't opening it under the union rules. They were looking to ADD jobs, but since they weren't going to be union jobs, the union didn't want it opened.

Actually, that depends very much. If most of the production is being moved to that new plant, resulting in the closing of the original plant in the near-term, that would also almost certainly be illegal. Based on the statements by Boeing officials, it seems pretty clear that was the intent.

^^^

How is it illegal? They wanted to move operations to a more business friendly state that wasn't going to obstruct their business plan. Unions have the right to bargain for wages, working conditions etc. But last I checked, they aren't allowed to tell executive leadership how they should run their companies.

ViperOverLord wrote:How is it illegal? They wanted to move operations to a more business friendly state that wasn't going to obstruct their business plan. Unions have the right to bargain for wages, working conditions etc. But last I checked, they aren't allowed to tell executive leadership how they should run their companies.

As has already been stated, it is illegal to punish workers for belonging to a union and striking.

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So now Obama is praising Boeing when he was the one who tried to prevent them from creating jobs in other states? Pure politics right there.

As long as you equate "Barack Obama" with "established laws that protect worker's ability to strike," then yes. The President (or something) of Boeing said he was considering moving to South Carolina because of strikes at the existing plant. That's against the law. Barack Obama is not the law. You fail.

Is it really against the law? I'm not so sure about that.

Do you know why Boeing wanted to move to South Carolina (I mean apart from "because of the strikes")?

NYTimes, 4/26/2011 wrote:The N.L.R.B.’s case rests on statements by Boeing officials that, it believes, prove retaliation. One Boeing executive told The Seattle Times that the main reason to put the new line in South Carolina was “that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.”

I'm sure there are other factors, but that is why the NLRB filed suit. You can't retaliate against workers for striking. I feel like this got resolved when no actual jobs in Washington got cut.

They weren't actually moving. They were attempting to open a new plant in another state.

I can see unions using this precedent to stop any new plants from being built anywhere. "Hey, why are you moving to New Jersey? You need to add an addition to this plant."

OMG - They were planning on closing the striking Union plant and building a new replacement plant in a non-union area. The courts decided against them. What's there to disagree with? MFG here we have a case where the guilty party is making confessions to journalists and you guys are still questioning the courts decision.

Juan_Bottom wrote:OMG - They were planning on closing the striking Union plant and building a new replacement plant in a non-union area. The courts decided against them. What's there to disagree with? MFG here we have a case where the guilty party is making confessions to journalists and you guys are still questioning the courts decision.

They weren't going to close the striking plant.

Right, I feel like in the end Boeing basically promised they weren't going to cut any machinist jobs in Washington, the machinists were like, "Are you sure?" Boeing was like, "ya srsly," the machinists were like "ok kewl lol" and the NLRB dropped the suit. You can argue that the NLRB was a bit overzealous in this case, but it's not some sort of Obama's War Against Business, because that doesn't exist.

spurgistan wrote:Right, I feel like in the end Boeing basically promised they weren't going to cut any machinist jobs in Washington, the machinists were like, "Are you sure?" Boeing was like, "ya srsly," the machinists were like "ok kewl lol" and the NLRB dropped the suit. You can argue that the NLRB was a bit overzealous in this case, but it's not some sort of Obama's War Against Business, because that doesn't exist.

Yeah, I agree that Obama is not targeting business. He's a rather good friend of big business actually.

My interest in the NLRB/Boeing stuff is the overreach (in this case) of the NLRB. That's it. I don't think there was a mandate from the president (although I think the president was attempting to use the case politically) and I think the president wants to take credit for the jobs in South Carolina (although Boeing moved there because it was a right-to-work state).

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:How is it illegal? They wanted to move operations to a more business friendly state that wasn't going to obstruct their business plan. Unions have the right to bargain for wages, working conditions etc. But last I checked, they aren't allowed to tell executive leadership how they should run their companies.

As has already been stated, it is illegal to punish workers for belonging to a union and striking.

No. It is not. A company retains its right to do business when union workers strike.

Juan_Bottom wrote:OMG - They were planning on closing the striking Union plant and building a new replacement plant in a non-union area. The courts decided against them. What's there to disagree with? MFG here we have a case where the guilty party is making confessions to journalists and you guys are still questioning the courts decision.

The courts decided absolutely nothing in this case. One agency in the executive branch made decisions based on political considerations instead of the rule of law.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:How is it illegal? They wanted to move operations to a more business friendly state that wasn't going to obstruct their business plan. Unions have the right to bargain for wages, working conditions etc. But last I checked, they aren't allowed to tell executive leadership how they should run their companies.

As has already been stated, it is illegal to punish workers for belonging to a union and striking.

No. It is not. A company retains its right to do business when union workers strike.

Yes, it IS illegal. Certainly, a company retains it's right to do business when union workers strike...that doesn't change my point at all. It IS illegal to punish or retaliate against workers for belonging to a union and striking.