The EFCA gives the federal government power to impose a contract on both sides in the event of an impasse. Since when did that become a federal power?

This is not Socialism, this is Nationalism. We’ll have to start calling union members comrade.

Sultry Beauty on October 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

No, actually, I think the terms are “Blockleiter” and “Ortsgruppenleiter.” That way we can include both Nationalism and Socialism.

I’m sure that Hugo Chavez is smokin’ and jokin’ right now. I think we need to start pushing this little piece of legislation into people’s faces, otherwise next election, we’ll have a 99% turn out in favor of Our Leader. (I’d put that in the language it deserves, but people always start to howl “gratuitous National Socialist” reference, like it’s a bad thing to call something for what it is)

Are we so confident of ourselves that we think that even a benign form of totalitarianism can’t happen here in the U.S.?

And just to try to sew a few things together:

“The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.”
- Bertrand de Jouvenel

It will be in support of making abortion on demand by tax payer dollar a constitutional right.

Get Sarah and the Dude out to those unions fast!! There are A LOT of hideous things that only have John McCain as president standing in front of- TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!

Sure it was. It was bad management that destroyed the Auto Industry in Detroit. All three huge companies had bad managers. Who were stupid enough and cowed enough to agree to outrageous, unsustainable demands from union bosses and lawyers who never did an honest day’s work in their lives and who have no idea how to run a productive business (like Obama).

Same with the many steel companies we used to have. All incompetently managed of course. By people too weak to stand up to union thugs.

Has anybody else heard of any other freedom threatening legislation that Democrats have in the wings?

DFCtomm on October 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM

– Allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages – threatens freedom of contract and will stifle new mortgage lending

– Freedom of Choice Act (Obama told Planned Parenthood this will be the FIRST bill he will sign) will take away freedom of states to regulate abortion in any way, and require taxpayers to pay for abortions

– Dems held hearings this week on proposal to abolish 401(k) plans and force people to buy government bonds for their pension plans – no more freedom to invest

The argument of divided government is a powerful one, but one that the John McCain campaign has been reluctant to make explicit.

He actually made it last night in the debate, though just quickly. Just before the abortion/judges question:

“We can’t afford that in the next eight years and Senator Obama, with the Democrats in charge of Congress, things have gotten worse. Have you noticed, they’ve been in charge the last two years.”

It was a bit rambling, and he didn’t hit it hard, but he was starting to get at it. I’m glad he actually pointed out that Democrats have been in charge of Washington for the last two years — that will come as a surprise to many Americans.

Re: Card Check…

I’d hope he’s hammering on this issue in targeted ads in blue-collar areas in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Remind workers that when Democrats stand with the unions, they are standing with the union bosses, not with the union members.

No you wouldn’t. You would off shore it, and that is exactly what will happen.

DFCtomm on October 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Exactly, any business of any size keeps the option of going off-shore on the table.

The left love Hussein, so they love Card Check.

Gee, imagine a Marxist like Obama (the officially endorsed candidate of the Communist Party USA) promising to sign such an un-American, anti-democratic bill into law.

But don’t anybody dare question his patriotism. He loves this country and everything it stands for. That’s why he so eager to CHANGE it all.

We’ll have to start calling union members comrade.

Sultry Beauty on October 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM

I thought the term was

made man

or Man of Honor

capiche???

and you don’t see things the union way…the union boyz will give you an attitude adjustment…capich???

Frankly, if I owned a business and the employees tried to vote in the union, I’d go out of business before I’d accept it.

Both my husband, my son and my brother were screwed over by unions. They do NOT have the best interests of the workers at heart; they are only in it for their own gain.

Common Sense on October 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM

No you wouldn’t. You would off shore it, and that is exactly what will happen.

The EFCA gives the federal government power to impose a contract on both sides in the event of an impasse. Since when did that become a federal power?

This is not Socialism, this is Nationalism. We’ll have to start calling union members comrade.

Both my husband, my son and my brother were screwed over by unions. They do NOT have the best interests of the workers at heart; they are only in it for their own gain.

The union is the United Auto Workers.

So, a grad student doing research on the Roman Republic or Botany is required to join the UAW and pay dues to the UAW.

Here in California, we have no choice. We are not a Right to Work state.

Be aware that the Democrats are out to remove the section of the Taft Hartley act that allows states to be Right to Work. That means no one in a Right to Work state can be forced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. If the Dems succede, this will be outlawed.

Forced unionism will come to the 20-something states that are Right to Work now. That includes all those new auto plants in the South that are so successful now due to the absense of the UAW.

With forced unionism, product prices will sharply increase, due to massive raises and benefit costs demanded by the union.

Millions of jobs will go out of the country.

By the way, the Dems want to change the law that allows employers to replace striking workers with new hires. The Dems would outlaw this. You would have to capitulate to the union or go out of business.

Hail to our new overlords.

If they say “no”, then I ask them why should public employee unions be allowed to make campaign contributions to the very politicians who negotiate union contracts.

BTW, did you know that all those CWA union stickers on the back of ATT service trucks are there per their labor contract? I wonder how the union would feel if the company wanted to force employees to put company advertising on their personal vehicles.

USA Today: Stop Card Check . . .

USA Today’s editorial board comes out in opposition to Card Check
today. The editorial notes the Orwellian construct of a bill named the
Employee Free Choice Act that strips workers of the right to a……

What rational do they give for this bill? How do they explain away the fact that it will be used to intimidate people into voting the way others want?

Blake on October 16, 2008 at 2:36 PM

What rational is moving this country towards union and government control? Because they think they can. Because they (this sick liberal movement) are feeding on the lazyness of a spoiled populace that finds it easier to rely on a nanny-state mentality than to fend for themselves. Democrats have based their entire careers sucking off this lazy side of society.

*eats*

Somebody should ask Joe the Plumber what he thinks of this.