barry looks to Amnesty to Progressive Rule...

**layoutshooter** · 02-09-2010, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by TeamDriven

Where'd you pull that one out of? I don't want to smell it for sure.

Anthropology classes at the U of Maryland in the mid '70's. No, I no longer have the text books, I have moved 5 or 6 times since then.

There is more than ample evidence of Nordic exploration of the East Coast that pre-dated the "indians" for lack of a better term.
There is also much evidence that the Japanesse were working the west coast as well.

I notice when I lived in Japan that every once in a while a "Spanish" sounding word came out. It made no sense to me until a friend of mine (japanese) told me about the trade that went on between the Spandards and the Japanese who often visited the west coast even prior to European settlements.

**TeamDriven** · 02-09-2010, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by layoutshooter

the trade that went on between the Spandards and the Japanese who often visited the west coast even prior to European settlements.

Did these spandards trade in tight fitting garments?

**layoutshooter** · 02-09-2010, 01:17 AM

So much for trying to have an intelligent conversation.

**LDB** · 02-09-2010, 02:44 AM

Cat's have nine lives. Doug appears to have ninety lives. Amnesty for millions of criminals is only common sense if one is too far to the left to have true common sense. Surely this is a case of Douging and not someone truly believing such foolishness.

**greg334** · 02-09-2010, 10:53 AM

1 - Oilerman, I would have agreed with the UAW's position but they want to reform immigration instead of ENFORCING employement laws. Immigration, including the "guest" worker programs and other VISA programs don't put the people at risk, the lack of enforcement of all the employment laws do.

2 - the real problem has been too much work has been put on correcting the problem of immigration not for the country but for the immigrate. They have no right to be here unless there is a need and like many other countries, Australia comes to mind, there is a strict control on who can and can not get into the country. With our economic conditions now, we don't even need most of the H-1b visa holders to be here.

3 - the native americans were here when eupropeans arrived, that is true but they didn't come here and just find a land that was free of people or just land here out of the sky. They migrated just like other people have, starting with the Vikings and Chinese. But more importantly there was a structure in the form of a country or a nation that they lived within. They also were not all one with nature, some tribes were very enviornmetally distructive.

4 - Dougs back!

**Oilerman1957** · 02-09-2010, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by greg334

1 - Oilerman, I would have agreed with the UAW's position but they want to reform immigration instead of ENFORCING employement laws. Immigration, including the "guest" worker programs and other VISA programs don't put the people at risk, the lack of enforcement of all the employment laws do.

2 - the real problem has been too much work has been put on correcting the problem of immigration not for the country but for the immigrate. They have no right to be here unless there is a need and like many other countries, Australia comes to mind, there is a strict control on who can and can not get into the country. With our economic conditions now, we don't even need most of the H-1b visa holders to be here.

3 - the native americans were here when eupropeans arrived, that is true but they didn't come here and just find a land that was free of people or just land here out of the sky. They migrated just like other people have, starting with the Vikings and Chinese. But more importantly there was a structure in the form of a country or a nation that they lived within. They also were not all one with nature, some tribes were very enviornmetally distructive.

4 - Dougs back!

Well, we can see they are'nt going to enforce employment laws as it has been going on for decades so maybe they are trying a different approach.

**greg334** · 02-09-2010, 11:38 AM

But the real problem is if the employment laws are enforced equally, it may be an issue for unions because of the problems they cover for their employees.

For example, Chrysler had a problem with sexual harassment at one of their plants. The UAW sided with the guy who was harassing the women - it was pretty bad. A few wanted to file with the EEOC but the UAW and company both put the women in a position that they either quit or deal with the harassment. That guy just retired, the women left a long time ago - what's was wrong with the UAW stepping aside?

Now the UAW and the Teamster BOTH have been against any employment checks, especially the Teamsters. They don't want the employer to do proper checks, they side with the company when they were fighting all of it.

No matter how you look at it, changing one set of rules or laws to correct a problem that has nothing to do with those laws seems to be typical feel good stuff without addressing the issues.

I feel and this may surprise you, that if a company like Tyson or like GM or who ever it is, hires people who invade our country and get caught - they lose that asset. This means the property where the crime takes place should now become the property of the federal government and the company execs get fined for hiring criminals - no exceptions.

**Oilerman1957** · 02-09-2010, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by greg334

But the real problem is if the employment laws are enforced equally, it may be an issue for unions because of the problems they cover for their employees.

For example, Chrysler had a problem with sexual harassment at one of their plants. The UAW sided with the guy who was harassing the women - it was pretty bad. A few wanted to file with the EEOC but the UAW and company both put the women in a position that they either quit or deal with the harassment. That guy just retired, the women left a long time ago - what's was wrong with the UAW stepping aside?

Now the UAW and the Teamster BOTH have been against any employment checks, especially the Teamsters. They don't want the employer to do proper checks, they side with the company when they were fighting all of it.

No matter how you look at it, changing one set of rules or laws to correct a problem that has nothing to do with those laws seems to be typical feel good stuff without addressing the issues.

I feel and this may surprise you, that if a company like Tyson or like GM or who ever it is, hires people who invade our country and get caught - they lose that asset. This means the property where the crime takes place should now become the property of the federal government and the company execs get fined for hiring criminals - no exceptions.

I 've seen that happen both ways on the sexual harressment thing. I know at our plant it was not tolerated at all.

I agree with you on companies hiring illegals but for some reason the gov wont do anything about it, so i ask, why wont they, there must be something in it for them, doesnt matter which party is in control they let it go on.

**greg334** · 02-09-2010, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Oilerman1957

I 've seen that happen both ways on the sexual harressment thing. I know at our plant it was not tolerated at all.

It all depends but the point is that the policy of the union should be uniform for all, not allowing one plant/ one local to have a poor work environment while others don't - isn't that the fundamental purpose of the UAW?

Originally Posted by Oilerman1957

I agree with you on companies hiring illegals but for some reason the gov wont do anything about it, so i ask, why wont they, there must be something in it for them, doesnt matter which party is in control they let it go on.

SO because the government won't enforce the laws and take property away, it means we need to make a criminal act against the country OK by allowing those who invaded to stay and make it easier for everyone to become citizens?

They won't because of the lobbying of both companies and organized labor - that's why.

The funny thing is, the UAW seems to be focusing on areas that have nothing that will help their members. The need to have guest workers here takes jobs away from Union members in both the right to work states and in states like mine. They should, like the teamsters fight to keep jobs here not import cheaper labor. Why don't they fight the "Americans won't do those jobs" propaganda when they know it is not true? I have yet seen many invaders doing some of the jobs that are very hard and very dangerous, have you?

Maybe they, the UAW and Teamsters need to start fighting the ignorance in this country, being honest about the situation and side with all the people who work for a living, not the select few that they can convince that union living is the only way to live.

**Oilerman1957** · 02-09-2010, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by greg334

It all depends but the point is that the policy of the union should be uniform for all, not allowing one plant/ one local to have a poor work environment while others don't - isn't that the fundamental purpose of the UAW?

SO because the government won't enforce the laws and take property away, it means we need to make a criminal act against the country OK by allowing those who invaded to stay and make it easier for everyone to become citizens?

They won't because of the lobbying of both companies and organized labor - that's why.

The funny thing is, the UAW seems to be focusing on areas that have nothing that will help their members. The need to have guest workers here takes jobs away from Union members in both the right to work states and in states like mine. They should, like the teamsters fight to keep jobs here not import cheaper labor. Why don't they fight the "Americans won't do those jobs" propaganda when they know it is not true? I have yet seen many invaders doing some of the jobs that are very hard and very dangerous, have you?

Maybe they, the UAW and Teamsters need to start fighting the ignorance in this country, being honest about the situation and side with all the people who work for a living, not the select few that they can convince that union living is the only way to live.

Im sure it is uniform but that doesnt mean it will be followed by all, just the way it is.

The unions fought abour illegals working here for many yrs and got nothing out of it, so maybe they got tired of beating there heads against the wall and try another approach {unions dont get everything they ask for}. So now they are saying if your going to allow them to work make the companies that hire them pay workers comp, pay into umployment fund, These companies are avoiding all of those things to make more profit and have a advantage.

You know if you only look for the negative on things thats what you will find

**layoutshooter** · 02-09-2010, 01:10 PM

What I don't understand Oiler, not to be a pain, you know you were screwed by the union. You know you were screwed by the company and you know you are now being screwed by our government. Why back them at all. Is it not the time to get rid of the bums, at all levels, and start over with you and I and the rest of the people in control of our lives?

You sound like an intelligent man. Don't you think that you can take care of your self better that if someone else does it for you? I have little doubt in my mind that you could.

**Oilerman1957** · 02-09-2010, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by layoutshooter

What I don't understand Oiler, not to be a pain, you know you were screwed by the union. You know you were screwed by the company and you know you are now being screwed by our government. Why back them at all. Is it not the time to get rid of the bums, at all levels, and start over with you and I and the rest of the people in control of our lives?

You sound like an intelligent man. Don't you think that you can take care of your self better that if someone else does it for you? I have little doubt in my mind that you could.

Im use to being screwed and just make the best of the cards im dealt. I have no problem with voting out each n every one, I just defend certain points layout, everything the union, company, government does isnt bad but those on here who are on the right just cant admit they do some good, Im not coming from the left or right, im just coming, lol

I dont agree with everytihng the union does, but they helped secure my pension n heath care, though there are those who dont like it, but im glad

As far as Gm, i made a good living there, they got in trouble but again, they saved my pension n health care

The government? Again , they helped Gm and again they saved my pension n health care, so no, there not all bad.

Im 52 yrs old, those things are important to me n my family as my father is also retired from there.maybe its a lil selfish but you have to try and keep what you got

**chefdennis** · 02-09-2010, 01:43 PM

oiler wrote:

Im 52 yrs old, those things are important to me n my family as my father is also retired from there.maybe its a lil selfish but you have to try and keep what you got

Yeap, by screwing the stockholders, bondholders, and the US taxpayers (more of which had their taxes used for this bailout of a privatily held company then those from GM that paid taxes) and all then handed to the UNION.....

**greg334** · 02-09-2010, 01:47 PM

So just because they saved your pension and your health care it is alright to dump the debt on the tax payers while there are other companies that have been in trouble and no one came to their rescue?

What about letting pensions go unless there is a need to rescue them when someone like Denny McClain steals the money?

Should the credit go to the union or GM "management" themselves?

Shouldn't the credit be handed to the American People who have tolerated this unneeded cost to them in order to help less than .3% of the population?

What about the rest of us?

Will the Government bail me out when my 401K goes bust because we trusted GM to remain solvent instead of handing a Union all the new stock who has no investment into the company at all?

**Oilerman1957** · 02-09-2010, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by chefdennis

oiler wrote:

Yeap, by screwing the stockholders, bondholders, and the US taxpayers (more of which had their taxes used for this bailout of a privatily held company then those from GM that paid taxes) and all then handed to the UNION.....

They were going to get screwed any way it went. Stockholders always get screwed in a bancruptcy. As for the bondholders, most of them bought at a discount rate on GM so they didnt lose as much as you think they just didnt make as much as they wanted, and as far as the taxpayer, how much would it have cost to just take away pensions n health from all those people? The taxpayer got stock, maybe it will pay off, maybe not, but it sure is more then they got from AIG, BOA, CITIBANK.