News Blurb Heard on the BBC...
Billy Burpelson
said that he and Bush were discussing the bail out of the auto industry.
W said that he would go along with the bailout IF everyone went along
with his "free trade" deal with Colombia.
Is the man insane? Doesn't he realize that a fairly large reason that
the auto companies need bailing out is because of outsourcing all our
jobs to other countries? That he is putting gasoline on a fire instead
of water?
How much more damage can that son of a bush do to this country before
January 20th?
Heck of a job, Georgie!
Doorman
"Billy Burpelson" <bi...@burpelsonafb.net> wrote in message
news:7TlSk.7487$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Apparently you don't know how bad off the unions have made it for GM. There
are 780,000 people collecting retirement or their dependents. A business
cannot survive like that.
If Toyota had that baggage, we'd have no problem. When you want to find
blame for the auto industry, start with the unions.
If I'm not mistaken, the auto industry was around long before Bush took
office. And, not all 780,000 retirees and their dependents came to light
since Bush was elected. GM has known they're days are numbered for years.
They want you and me to start paying for the retirement plan. We already
did that once when we bought their cars and trucks.
bval...@aol.com
> When the BBC was reporting on Obama's visit to the White House, it was
> said that he and Bush were discussing the bail out of the auto industry.
> W said that he would go along with the bailout IF everyone went along
> with his "free trade" deal with Colombia.
.
> Is the man insane? Doesn't he realize that a fairly large reason that
> the auto companies need bailing out is because of outsourcing all our
> jobs to other countries? That he is putting gasoline on a fire instead
> of water?
> How much more damage can that son of a bush do to this country before
> January 20th?
> Heck of a job, Georgie!
1. We don't have to worry much about importing Colombian cars. That
country doesn't have a car industry. There are NO Colombian cars.
2. The bill is not about opening up our markets to Colombian goods.
It's about opening up Columbia to American exports. I have no idea
why the Democrats don't want Americans to sell their goods to the
Colombians, but they don't.
Bob Campbell
news:c2mSk.58557$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Apparently you don't know how bad off the unions have made it for GM.
> There are 780,000 people collecting retirement or their dependents. A
> business cannot survive like that.
Not only that, there are several thousand full time employees who do
nothing! Their jobs were described as "for life" by the union. So even
though these jobs have been eliminated, these people go to the union hall or
whatever the hell it is, and sit and watch TV for 8 hours a day to get their
full pay!
NO COMPANY can survive this kind of crap. The unions have killed the US
auto industry, not any President. What they should all do is close up, get
the hell out of Detroit and open up in some other state as non-union
factories. They would at least then have a chance of competing.
Brenda Ann
"Bob Campbell" <b...@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:w_-dnQoH853NZ4TU...@supernews.com...
I agree completely that unions are not only of no further use, but are a
liability. At one time, unions were necessary. In some rare cases, they may
still be (WalMart), lest certain employers would pay no more than the
federally mandated minimum wage. But let's face it, all they do now is run
up wages to insane levels and help spiral inflation out of control (wages go
up, prices go up to pay the wages, wages go up to pay the higher prices, ad
inf.) And most of it so the unions can demand higher dues from their
members. And my favorite, and the reason I would never join a union, forced
strikes. I remember several strikes (the '70's Pulp and Paper Workers
strike for one) that went on for months, sometimes over a year. There's no
way that they ever got a raise adequate to make up for all the time they
were not working!
Mitchell Holman
> "Doorman" <nos...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:c2mSk.58557$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> Apparently you don't know how bad off the unions have made it for GM.
>> There are 780,000 people collecting retirement or their dependents. A
>> business cannot survive like that.
>
> Not only that, there are several thousand full time employees who do
> nothing! Their jobs were described as "for life" by the union. So
> even though these jobs have been eliminated, these people go to the
> union hall or whatever the hell it is, and sit and watch TV for 8 hours
> a day to get their full pay!
>
> NO COMPANY can survive this kind of crap. The unions have killed the
> US auto industry, not any President.
The German automakers are all unionized and still
turn out good cars and make a profit. Perhaps you are
wrong?
RHF
BB - OK so we are 'outsourcing' our
Cocaine Drug Dealers to Columbia ?
=PS= Columbia 'buys' more from the USA
then they 'sell' to the USA. Columbia
is a major "Buyer" of US Goods in South
America which means : Columbia creates
JOBs in the USA.
a heck of a job is still a job -and-
that is better than 'no' j-o-b at all ~ RHF
.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> How much more damage can that son of a bush do to this country before
> January 20th?
More than he has done over the last 8 years.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Apparently you don't know how bad off the unions have made it for GM.
Blaming the workers makes little sense. GM has made horrible management
decisions.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> The German automakers are all unionized and still
> turn out good cars and make a profit. Perhaps you are
> wrong?
It is fashionable in some circles to blame one's fellow workers. It is a
sad commentary on the effectiveness of propoganda.
RHF
> In alt.religion.christian Doorman <nos...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Apparently you don't know how bad off the unions have made it for GM.
- Blaming the workers makes little sense.
The GM Employees, Their Auto Workers Union and Their Retirement Costs
are all Part of the Greater GM Financial Problem {Bankruptcy}; and the
Blame Goes Where The Blame Goes -to- Both Management and Labor [.]
- GM has made horrible management decisions.
Apparently starting with their Labor Contracts.
To Solve the Auto Companies Problems :
1st - Mandate the Process of Bankruptcy for the Companies and Remove the
Retirement Costs like United Airlines and other Bankrupt Companies did
to their Retired Workers According-to-US-Law with the US Government's
Consent.
2nd - Place the Retired Auto Workers under Social Security at the
prevailing Social Security Retiree Rates and NO More. -meaning- Treat
Them Equal To -but- No Better than 'other' Retired American Workers.
3rd - Place the Retired Workers under Medicare with the prevailing
Medicare Healthy Insurance Coverage and NO More. -meaning- Treat Them
Equal To -but- No Better than 'other' Retired American Workers.
When-and-If : National Health Care comes about ALL WILL BE EQUAL :
Including GM's Workers and Retirees.
Equal-for-One -is Equal-For-All ~ RHF
.
George Grapman
Gm/Toyota plant in Fremont,Ca. Is is 100 percent union.
One of the problems is GM is that they invested heavily in
manufacturing gas guzzlers, something that was done by management,not
unions.
Take a look at some recent bankruptcy filings,Circuit City,National
Wholesale Liquidators and the financial giants that folded and try to
find unions anywhere there.
Billy Burpelson
> "Billy Burpelson" <bi...@burpelsonafb.net> wrote in message
> news:7TlSk.7487$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> When the BBC was reporting on Obama's visit to the White House, it was
>> said that he and Bush were discussing the bail out of the auto industry. W
>> said that he would go along with the bailout IF everyone went along with
>> his "free trade" deal with Colombia.
>>
>> Is the man insane? Doesn't he realize that a fairly large reason that the
>> auto companies need bailing out is because of outsourcing all our jobs to
>> other countries? That he is putting gasoline on a fire instead of water?
>>
>> How much more damage can that son of a bush do to this country before
>> January 20th?
>>
>> Heck of a job, Georgie!
Doorman wrote:
> Apparently you don't know how bad off the unions have made it for
GM. There
> are 780,000 people collecting retirement or their dependents. A business
> cannot survive like that.
>
> If Toyota had that baggage, we'd have no problem. When you want to find
> blame for the auto industry, start with the unions.
Well, GM sales were down 30% the last quarter while Toyota sales were
down 23%, not too far behind and indicating that 'unions' are not the
root problem. The problem seems to be that PEOPLE DON"T HAVE THE MONEY
TO BUY A CAR, ANY CAR, , because THEIR JOBS HAVE BEEN SHIPPED OVERSEAS.
The Unions can be -part- of the problem. In the late 30s, management was
grossly abusing the workers and there was a *legitimate* need for
unions. In later years, the unions may have gone too far -- it seems the
pendulum swings too far in both directions. (However, there is still a
limited need for unions even today -- witness Wal-Mart).
However, I respectfully suggest you are not looking at the whole
picture. Possibly I didn't make my point clear enough or possibly you
overlooked it. It has NOTHING to do with the auto companies (or unions)
per se; it has EVERYTHING to do with Joe and Sally Citizen, who -buy-
the cars.
The people that -buy- the cars, everybody from the the guy that makes
bed pans to the guy that makes bicycles, has seen their jobs go
overseas. Once they have lost that good paying American manufacturing
job to other countries, they don't have the money to buy a new car,
domestic OR Toyota. Thus my original point that you seem to have
overlooked: Bush sending even *more* jobs overseas is -not- going to
help this country one bit, and indeed, he seems not to realize that this
'outsourcing' leaves less money for our citizens to buy American made
products, nor does he realize the irony that his deal with Colombia (and
Mexico and Haiti and India and China) is why the auto companies need to
be bailed out.
joe
No, it is because Detroit makes too many big vehicles and too few fuel
efficient cars. It is because the high price of gas has finally made people
think about driving a vehicle that uses a lot of gas. It is because the
turmoil in the banking industry has made credit difficult to get.
If sales were down 30% because people lost their jobs, then 30% of the
people must have lost their jobs. But that is not true. Unemployment
numbers are much lower.
The recent reduction in car sales does not track the jobs lost. You have
nothing that shows there is a connection.
>
> The Unions can be -part- of the problem. In the late 30s, management was
> grossly abusing the workers and there was a *legitimate* need for
> unions. In later years, the unions may have gone too far -- it seems the
> pendulum swings too far in both directions. (However, there is still a
> limited need for unions even today -- witness Wal-Mart).
Yes, financially they are doing well compared to their competition.
>
> However, I respectfully suggest you are not looking at the whole
> picture. Possibly I didn't make my point clear enough or possibly you
> overlooked it. It has NOTHING to do with the auto companies (or unions)
> per se; it has EVERYTHING to do with Joe and Sally Citizen, who -buy-
> the cars.
If the auto companies were making more fuel efficient cars, they would have
better sales. Look at the Toyota Prius, one of the most fuel efficient cars
around. They are selling quite well. (Notice how Toyota is running
promotions on all cars except the Prius. The don't need incentives to sell
them.)
It has a lot to do with the auto companies. The management has chosen to
ignore fuel efficient cars for too long.
When years of service is the merit of an employee rather than productivity
and quality of work, then the unions are part of the problem.
>
> The people that -buy- the cars, everybody from the the guy that makes
> bed pans to the guy that makes bicycles, has seen their jobs go
> overseas. Once they have lost that good paying American manufacturing
> job to other countries, they don't have the money to buy a new car,
> domestic OR Toyota.
Are you implying those who don't have a manufacturing job don't buy cars?
> Thus my original point that you seem to have
> overlooked: Bush sending even *more* jobs overseas is -not- going to
> help this country one bit, and indeed, he seems not to realize that this
> 'outsourcing' leaves less money for our citizens to buy American made
> products, nor does he realize the irony that his deal with Colombia (and
> Mexico and Haiti and India and China) is why the auto companies need to
> be bailed out.
OK, bail out the car companies, so they can do what? Build more cars that
nobody wants to buy? That doesn't solve any problems. If one company has to
fail, so be it. That is the nature of our economy. The survivors may see
more sales.
Jobs go overseas because companies can't compete. Figure out why that is and
you can start to solve the problem.
Jobs moving overseas is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. You need to
address the cause.
BDK
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com says...
> In alt.religion.christian Doorman <nos...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Apparently you don't know how bad off the unions have made it for GM.
>
> Blaming the workers makes little sense. GM has made horrible management
> decisions.
>
>
If GM was still selling cars like they would in the 60's, there would be
zero problems. A huge pension bill for retired employees, and shrinking
sales adds up to trouble.
People here in this area, heavily auto industry dependant, seem to be
totally clueless that when they buy foreign cars, they are sowing the
seeds of financial doom. A good paying job in manufacturing is now a
rare thing, unlike even 30 years ago, and young kids wonder why, while
driving Hondas, Toyotas, Kias, and Hyundai's.
Amazing.
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> "Bob Campbell" <b...@bob.bob> wrote innews:w_-dnQoH853NZ4TU...@supernews.com:
Bad management and not building cars that appeal as much as imports
has killed American automakers way more than unions.
That and having to pay health care when every other civilized
industrial country on earth takes care of this as a basic right, and
is paid by taxpayers rather than employers.
Unions are a problem, but making bad cars that people don't want is a
worse problem.
(Yes, I drive a Dodge. It's an OK car. Felt good buying American,
but honestly the quality isn't quite Honda, and the gas mileage
definitely isn't.
Today, I'm still glad I did, BUT... relying on the laudable "Buy
American" impulse is not enough with so many really high-quality cheap
cars coming in from South Korea and Japan.)
dogbertm...@gmail.com
>
> No, it is because Detroit makes too many big vehicles and too few fuel
> efficient cars. It is because the high price of gas has finally made people
> think about driving a vehicle that uses a lot of gas. It is because the
> turmoil in the banking industry has made credit difficult to get.
>
> If sales were down 30% because people lost their jobs, then 30% of the
> people must have lost their jobs. But that is not true. Unemployment
> numbers are much lower.
>
> The recent reduction in car sales does not track the jobs lost. You have
> nothing that shows there is a connection.
As far as fuel efficiency and building the "right" cars, there is no
reason why an American company cannot crank out plug-in electric
hybrid cars, using state-of-the-art electronics/chips and software,
and improved materials and battery technology. If any country on
earth could implement a better crash program to make carbon fiber
manufacturing, battery capacity, clean tiny hybrid engines, and
optimum management electronics for maximum range and utility, I'd be
surprised.
All that's needed is a "can-do" attitude, an investment (not bail-out)
in basic R&D in all these areas, and a sustained push to get it done.
THOSE high-technology cars are the American cars that will sell in
Germany, or the UK, or Canada, as well as here.
Not crappy cost-cutting gas-guzzlers designed considering only
domestic appeal, which are outscored by Korean imports.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> In article <gfd374$nr...@reader1.panix.com>,
> EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com says...
When the dilemma is competing with cheap products where wages are
lower, one answer is to build superior products. In cars, Japan has
figured this out as they target luxury markets. There's no reason the
USA can't do the same.
Nobody can tell me that American industry cannot manufacture stellar-
quality products, even with high-wage employees.
Look at Intel, or AMD, or IBM, cranking out exquisitely complex
devices requiring extreme precision and repeatability on a gigantic
scale, at commodity prices.
Making a reliable car that is manufactured intelligently, with robots
in the high-error parts of assembly, is about good engineering, not
national character.
If you want high-wage jobs, you need to manufacture stuff that's a
"cut above" the cheap imports, not an American version of them.
That means moving up-technology, into automated roads and cars, or
plug-in hybrids, or ways to make do with smaller engines without
losing too much performance to sell in the marketplace.
GM isn't doing this enough. They have to get cracking. The Volt is
certainly a step in the right direction though :)
I sure hope they understand that.
msg
<snip>
> As far as fuel efficiency and building the "right" cars, there is no
> reason why an American company cannot crank out plug-in electric
> hybrid cars, using state-of-the-art electronics/chips and software,
> and improved materials and battery technology. If any country on
> earth could implement a better crash program to make carbon fiber
> manufacturing, battery capacity, clean tiny hybrid engines, and
> optimum management electronics for maximum range and utility, I'd be
> surprised.
I fear that there may be intellectual property rights issues involving
advanced battery technology that for now is the province of Asian
concerns and is a real impediment to U.S. domestic development. Add
to that the nationwide disregard and often rejection of science and
technology priority and initiative in the last decade and it is no
surprise that we currently lack the capability to mount a program
that you suggest. At least McCain voiced support of a program to
develop a nuclear powered nationwide grid to support plug-in vehicles
and also showed some public support for NASA and space exploration;
Obama has been absolutely silent on space and has no real interest
in nuclear technology, and would probably be pressured into rejecting
it from pressure by certain interest groups. I am not a Republican,
but I fear for our future as a source of innovation and initiative
under the upcoming administration. I have thought of proposing an
email campaign to folks such as astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson
who is very strong on NASA and space exploration, to encourage
lobbying the new administration to strongly support space, tech r&d
and science at all levels.
Michael
msg
<snip>
> Obama has been absolutely silent on space and has no real interest
> in nuclear technology
<snip>
I withdraw this statement, as I have not done any real research other
than reading reports of what was on the campaign's website; in fact
Obama is on record as not a friend of NASA -- see:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1100/1
> Obama’s modest proposal: no hue, no cry?
> by Greg Zsidisin
> Monday, April 7, 2008
>
> [Editor’s Note: This is part 1 of a three-part article.]
>
> If elected President, Senator Barack Obama plans to delay Project
> Constellation for at least five years, putting the saved money into
> a new $10-billion-a-year education program that would, in essence,
> nationalize early-education for children under five years old to
> prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond.
>
> Why single out the space budget to cut for this program? “NASA is
> no longer associated with inspiration,” Obama told a campaign rally
> audience in March. The silence from space advocacy groups in response
> to this policy, made public in November, has been deafening. As I have
> discovered in recent weeks, Obama is personally adamant about this
> approach, if the details of its implementation remain hazy.
Attacking the space program, as poorly funded as it is, and singling
out a very important discovery program such as this, to me is
unconscionable, while sabre rattling about Iran's nuclear program
and heading into a bigger morass in Afghanistan. So much for the
waves of grass-roots populism that purportedly put him in office -
it reeks of the techno-hatred of the hippie movement, and yet it
was technology willingly exploited by the masses, with cell-phones
growing from their ears and fat pipes to the 'Net that they so
willingly have co-opted, that comprise the tools credited with giving
his campaign the edge.
Michael
cuh...@webtv.net
a SON OF A BITCH Nazi, just like his dad!
cuhulin
RHF
Unions Ain't the Problem : Sustainable Employment
Benefits that are Consistent with the Rest of
American Workers are a Real Issue.
To Solve the Auto Companies Problems :
1st - Mandate the Process of Bankruptcy for the
Companies and Remove the Retirement Costs like
United Airlines and other Bankrupt Companies did
to their Retired Workers According-to-US-Law with
the US Government's Consent.
2nd - Place the Retired Auto Workers under Social
Security at the prevailing Social Security Retiree
Rates and NO More. -meaning- Treat Them Equal To
-but- No Better than 'other' Retired American Workers.
DO NOT CREATE A TWO TIERED RETIREMENT SYSTEM
ONE HIGH-PAYING FOR THE RETIRED AUTO WORKERS
THAT IS PAID FOR BY ALL US TAXPAYERS -and-
One that is Lower Paying for All the 'Other'
Retired American Workers Paid For By the
Workers Themselves Called Social Security.
Two Systems Separate and Totally Un-Equal.
3rd - Place the Retired Workers under Medicare
with the prevailing Medicare Healthy Insurance
Coverage and NO More. -meaning- Treat Them Equal
To -but- No Better than 'Other' Retired American
Workers.
DO NOT CREATE A TWO TIERED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
ONE HIGH-COVERAGE FOR THE RETIRED AUTO WORKERS
THAT IS PAID FOR BY ALL US TAXPAYERS -and-
One that is Lower Coverage for All the 'Other'
Retired American Workers Paid For By the
Workers Themselves Called Medicare.
Two Systems Separate and Totally Un-Equal.
When-and-If : National Health Care comes about
ALL WILL BE EQUAL : Including GM's Workers and
Retirees.
CRITICAL : Fund the National Health Care System
by a Nation Sales Tax : So that the Imported
Japanese/Korean Auto Pays the same Tax {Cost}
as the Domestic American Auto Pays. The Result
is Equal Taxation for Both Foreign and Domestic
Products and Services to Support National Health
Care and Reduce American Manufacturing Costs by
unburdening them from the Cost of America's
Social Welfare Programs.
* Eliminate the Federal Income Tax on Incomes
below $250K and replace it by a National
Day-to-Day Consumer Spending Sales Tax on All
Goods and Services both Foreign and Domestic.
** Foreign Goods and Services should and must
Pay Their Fair-Share in Supporting America's
Consumer Economy and Government.
* Eliminate the Social Security Payroll Tax
on all Incomes and replace it by a National
Day-to-Day Consumer Spending Sales Tax on All
Goods and Services both Foreign and Domestic.
** Foreign Goods and Services should and must
Pay Their Fair-Share in Supporting America's
Consumer Economy and Social Welfare Systems.
* Fund a National Health Care System by a
National Day-to-Day Consumer Spending Sales
Tax on All Goods and Services both Foreign
and Domestic.
** Foreign Goods and Services should and must
Pay Their Fair-Share in Supporting America's
Consumer Economy and National Health Care System.
America's Consumer Economy : America as an
'Open' Free-Trade Market-Place for the World.
Equal-for-One -is- Equal-For-All
Dosvedanya Tovarisch ~ RHF
.
TianM...@gmail.com
October 15, 2008 - The Third McCain-Obama Presidential Debate
[...]
MCCAIN: Well, you know, I admire so much Senator Obama's eloquence.
And you really have to pay attention to words.
[...]
Now, on the subject of free trade agreements. I am a free trader.
[...]
But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that
Senator Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some
made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to
[democratic] Colombia, which is OUR LARGEST AGRICULTURAL IMPORTER OF
OUR PRODUCTS, is -- there's a billion dollars that we -- our
businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there.
Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our
country for free [Tax free - Americans save money]. So Senator Obama,
who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free
Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to stop the
flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans.
And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us
create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and
products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the
billions of dollars -- the billion dollars and more that we've already
paid.
Free trade with [democratic] Colombia is something that's a no-
brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and
maybe you could understand it a lot better.
OBAMA: Let me respond. Actually, I UNDERSTAND IT PRETTY WELL. The
history in Colombia right now is that [MARXIST] LABOR LEADERS have
been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis [see
below] and there have not been prosecutions.
And what I have said, because the free trade -- the trade agreement
itself DOES HAVE labor and environmental protections, but we have to
stand for human rights [for marxists] and we have to make sure that
violence isn't being perpetrated against [marxist] workers [What about
marxist perpetrators?] who are just trying to organize for their
[marxist] rights, which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian
Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement. [NOTE: The
Peruvian FTA was based on the Andean Trade Preference Act. In 1991,
under the George H. W. Bush administration, the United States enacted
the Andean Trade Preference Act. The program was renewed in 2002 by
the George W. Bush administration as the Andean Trade Promotion and
Drug Eradication Act. OBAMA did nothing! He is an obfuscator!]
[...]
MCCAIN: Well, let me just [say] that... Senator Obama doesn't want a
free trade agreement with our best ally in the region but wants to sit
down across the table without precondition with [communist dictator]
Hugo Chavez [a murderer], the guy who has been helping [marxist] FARC
[drug cartell], the terrorist organization.
Free trade between ourselves and [democratic] Colombia, I just recited
to you the benefits of concluding that agreement, a billion dollars of
American dollars that could have gone to creating jobs and businesses
in the United States, opening up those markets.
...I don't think there's any doubt that Senator OBAMA WANTS TO
RESTRICT TRADE AND HE WANTS TO RAISE TAXES. And the last president of
the United States that tried that was Herbert Hoover, and we went from
a deep recession into a depression.
We're not going to follow that path when I'm president of the United
States.
[...]
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2008d.html
_______________________________________________________
In 2003 Colombian President Alvaro Uribe accused Colombian NGOs of
“politicking at the service of terrorism.” “Every time a security
policy is carried out in Colombia to defeat terrorism, when terrorists
start feeling weak, they immediately send their spokesmen to talk
about human rights.”
In 2002 over 40 Democrat members of Congress signed a letter to
Secretary of State Colin Powell alleging "human rights violations" by
the Government of Colombia in its war against the drug-running,
marxist guerrilla terrorist Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces,
FARC, established as the military wing of the Colombian Communist
Party. This letter, published worldwide and used as pro-FARC anti-
Government of Colombia propaganda, made no mention of marxist FARC's
thousands of murders, atrocities and support from Cuban Marxist
dictator Fidel Castro and from Venezuela's Marxist caudillo Hugo
Chavez. The letter urged Secretary Powell "to take our concerns into
account when determining whether to approve additional military aid
for Colombia this year."
http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/02072301.htm
The daring rescue this past summer of French-Colombian politician
Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other hostages (including three Americans) by
Colombian commandos is cause for rejoicing. As Colombian President
Alvaro Uribe put it, the rescue mission was "an unbelievable military
achievement." It marked yet another huge victory for Colombia in its
war on terrorism and another embarrassing defeat for the country's
main leftist guerrilla group--known by its Spanish acronym, FARC--
which had been holding Betancourt since 2002.
During the six years of her captivity, Colombia was transformed.
Murders, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks have all plunged
dramatically. The FARC has been devastated by combat deaths and
desertions; its remaining forces inhabit remote camps deep in the
Colombian jungle, far away from the urban areas. As a result, foreign
investment is pouring into the biggest cities. The World Bank has
lauded Colombia for its economic reforms, which helped GDP grow by 6.8
percent in 2006 and by more than 7 percent in 2007.
When we consider the progress made under President Uribe (who was
first elected in 2002), it is appalling that the U.S. Congress has
refused to approve a free trade agreement (FTA) with Colombia,
ostensibly due to concerns over violence. By any serious measure,
Colombia is a far less violent place today than at any time in recent
years. Democratic House leaders argue that Colombia has not done
enough to stop attacks on trade unionists. That depends on the meaning
of the word "enough": According to official Colombian statistics,
murders of trade unionists declined from 196 in 2002 to 26 in 2007.
Uribe established a special government-funded program to protect union
members from violence, and there is no question that their safety has
increased enormously.
Unfortunately, American labor unions--a bulwark of the Democratic
party--are strongly opposed to the free trade pact. (Never mind that
the Free Trade Agreement would mostly benefit U.S. farmers and
exporters.) If the deal has any chance of winning congressional
approval, it will happen after the 2008 election.
Like most Democrats, Barack Obama has come out against the Colombia
Free Trade Agreement and has chastised the Uribe administration for
not doing more to reduce violence. Though Obama speaks often of his
desire to improve U.S. credibility abroad, the Democrats' treatment of
Colombia is having precisely the opposite effect. Uribe is our closest
ally in Latin America. If Congress is willing to humiliate him, what
message does that send to other countries in the region?
If Obama saw the results on the ground in Colombia, he would be less
inclined to denounce Uribe over human rights. John McCain was in
Colombia last summer (the same week Betancourt was rescued).
Since 2000, the United States has spent billions of dollars on "Plan
Colombia," an aid package designed to help Colombia stamp out
narcotics trafficking. Though it was expanded by President Bush, Plan
Colombia began as a Clinton administration initiative that enjoyed
strong bipartisan backing in Congress. In other words, close
cooperation with Bogotá is not a "Bush policy."
Colombia is located in a region where Communist Venezuelan leader Hugo
Chávez is trying to spread radical populism. Americans should affirm
their support for a robust U.S.-Colombia partnership--even if it
angers some prominent socialist Democrats, Liberal Fascist Neo-
Communists and the marxist AFL-CIO crowd.
In other words, ObaMao does not give a damn about working Americans.
NO! The only thing he cares about are his marxist comrades in the
Communist Party International:
Recovered Emails Detail the FARC's International Support
Email messages linking the Colombian Marxist guerilla insurgency
(known by its Spanish acronym, FARC) to POLITICIANS, UNION ACTIVISTS
AND LEFT-WING POLITICAL PARTIES IN NORTH AMERICA have revealed a
network of supporters spanning several continents, and have kept
tensions high between Colombia and some of its neighbors.
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2742
ObaMao doesn't want to save no stinkin' white ass blue collar union
workers. HELL NO! He wants to save the MARXIST MURDERERS who run the
Communist Unions and who have ties with the drug cartel, the Columbian
Marxist FARC, who are running cocaine into the noses of your sons and
daughters.
In his own words ObaMao admits to being a CrAcKhEaD!
cuh...@webtv.net
Freaks,,,,,,,
cuhulin
Billy Burpelson
> Billy Burpelson <bi...@burpelsonafb.net> wrote:
>
>> How much more damage can that son of a bush do to this country before
>> January 20th?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> More than he has done over the last 8 years.
Well, it looks like the poster above was right. W, the Best Friend Big
Business ever had, IS doing more damage.
From the front page of the November 20th Wall Street Journal:
"Bush has adopted several regulatory changes long sought by business
groups..."
One of those 'regulatory changes' is allowing truck drivers to extend
their time behind the wheel to 11 hours, something all the Safety
Associations are against.
Before all you rabid Shrub supporters start foaming at the mouth, you'd
better think twice and fervently hope that a truck driver doesn't fall
asleep at the wheel and kill your child, your spouse or you, thanks to
the law W pushed through for his Big Business buddies.
Sadly, yet more son of a bush trouble. Heck of job, Georgie!
C'mon January 20th!