Another question for conservatives & republicans

[usmc1]

Who are you going to side with on this one? The teamsters trying to save American jobs or this Republican administration out to destroy the middle class and unions.

Teamsters aim to block plan giving Mexican trucks more U.S. access

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Teamsters Union said Wednesday it will ask a federal appeals court to block the Bush administration's plan to allow Mexican trucks to carry cargo anywhere in the United States.

The union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border Saturday.

Teamsters leaders said they planned to seek an emergency injunction Wednesday from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"What a slap in the face to American workers, opening the highways to dangerous trucks on Labor Day weekend, one of the busiest driving weekends of the year," said Teamsters President Jim Hoffa.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/29/mex....ap/index.html

[nudeM]

I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a Republican agenda. I believe that this has been in the works for quite some time. I do not agree with it. Our truckers (owners and operators) are bound by laws on our highways, bound by strict safety operational standards that if failed, the truck is pulled from the roads until the repairs are made.

Are these foreign trucks going to be held to these same standards? Probably not. NAFTA was a huge mistake, and this is just another part of that agreement just to keep it 'fair'.

[usmc1]

I don't blame you for distancing yourself and you're not entirely wrong. But, the Republicans have had more than six years to abrogate this arrangement. This Republican administration, if one reads the piece, is forging ahead.

After all, KYOTO and the peremptory invasion and occupation of Iraq come to mind as examples of what a Republican president and Republican congress & senate can do when they wish to.

May I count you as standing in solidarity with the Teamsters, AFL/CIO and American workers?

[nudebushwalker]

While the Republicans over there, (and the Liberal Party down here,) are deeply mired in this - through their Big Business ties, and shared anti-worker philosophies and agendas - this is an international problem that is being organised by big business groups, a couple of big law firms in the USA, and several international brokerage firms that arrange for these groups of cut-price workers.
Their main thrust seems to be undercutting local wage levels, and weakening the influence of Unions, in most Western countries. [Also note they will often also use "Security services" to guard these groups, which are in reality the same groups of Mercenaries, as being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, to guard business interests there - as it is now widely illegal to use our own armies and police against us, which was a lot more common around 75 - 200 years ago..].
Over there you have problems with "Guest Workers" from Mexico and Central America;
In Europe and Russia, they are being flooded with cheap labour from Africa and eastern Europe;
Down here, they are mainly being brought in from South-East Asia on 6 or 12 month contracts...
The general and average pay-rate for these temporary 'scab' workers from third world countries is $US48 a day ("plus Keep"..) - up to ten times what they might get at home, but 2-4 X lower than the local wages for the workers they replace..
The Republicans in the US, the Lib's in Oz, the Tories in England, and their counterparts in all other 'first-world' countries, have always identified themselves as the party for Capital, big business and the wealthiest elites, so that they also see workers and individual freedoms as being their natural enemies.

[nudeM]

Posted by usmc1:

May I count you as standing in solidarity with the Teamsters, AFL/CIO and American workers

.................................................. .................................................. ....................................

I am a Union member and attend all of their meetings. I do not agree with everything they stand up for or against, but I being a shop steward, I do fight management when they get out of line.

[pahjo2]

How about fair trade instead of free trade?
Maybe we could come closer to balancing the import/export issue.
Stay nude and stay happy--I'm always happier when I'm nude---Pahjo

[blackrebel]

Your wording is TYPICAL of your people (FLAMING leftists) who can not ask a question from the middle. As usual, your wording is biased. (Do you really think up these questions, or are you copying these from MoveOn.org?)

Want some cred? Just ask the question WITHOUT the bias, for instance ... "Who are you going to side with on this one? Those who want to allow trucking from Mexico or those who dont want to allow it?" See how simple that is?

[nudebushwalker]

Instead of that typical right-wing fascist abuse, above there, you could also apply a clear and logical, "economical rationalist" approach to that same question, by applying a simple "cost:benefit" or "risk analysis" approach, like so :

Benefits/Pluses/'For'= cheaper costs

Costs/Risks/'Against'= dangerous and poorly maintained trucks;
dangerous and poorly trained drivers;
avoiding or side-stepping rules and regulations pertaining to driver safety and welfare, driving times and conditions;
applying downward pressures - via unfair and artificial competition - on pay rates/wages and living standards;
making life harder for unions and unionised labour;
depressing the transport sector of the economy - through the enforced removal of incomes in those places (homes, businesses, communities) where there would be a large and significant dependance on income from these transport businesses, companies that service and support them, and their suppliers;
widespread loss of jobs across all sections of these transport-related businesses - all the way from the drivers themselves, through to the workers on the truck factory floors...

There you go then, 'blackrebel', or are you really so narrow-minded, and fixated on your hard-core Republican agendas, that you don't even want to look at a 'centrist' and 'rational' analysis of this problem?

[Boreas]

While the Republicans over there, (and the Liberal Party down here,) are deeply mired in this - through their Big Business ties, and shared anti-worker philosophies and agendas - this is an international problem that is being organised by big business groups, a couple of big law firms in the USA, and several international brokerage firms that arrange for these groups of cut-price workers.

This is the issue. It is called globalization. It is shown through the WalMarts of this world and other more subtle organizations. There has been a concerted effort by the neo-conservative/neo-liberal forces to create a so called "free market economy". That is code for cutting costs as much as possible in order to have the biggest profits for the big guys.

[nimrod]

I see what I believe to be a growing trend here in the U.S. of the so called elite wanting only the elite and their servents to live in the U.S. The labor cost outside of the U.S. is lower which helps the elite become even more elite. Why pay an American to do a job that a Mexican will do for cheaper and not ask for health benefits? Why have a business in the U.S. when it can be done in China cheaper and we do not have to worry about silly things like safty? I saw a report that said a Barbie doll made in China cost about 40 cents to make and sells for $20 here.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by blackrebel:
Your wording is TYPICAL of your people (FLAMING leftists) who can not ask a question from the middle. As usual, your wording is biased. (Do you really think up these questions, or are you copying these from MoveOn.org?)

Want some cred? Just ask the question WITHOUT the bias, for instance ... "Who are you going to side with on this one? Those who want to allow trucking from Mexico or those who dont want to allow it?" See how simple that is?

I don't see how it could be any simpler than I put it. I guess what threw you was my failure to completely dumb down and give a detailed explanation of that which was implicit in the question.

A quandry for conservative Republicans, where on one hand we have "gasp" the Teamsters in opposition to something most, if not all, conservatives oppose---further opening of our borders to Mexico and giving American jobs to Mexicans and on the other, a Republican administrtion hell-bent on doing that very thing!

Teamsters versus Republicans. Seems simple to me. And I think the rest of the responders got it. But, now I've explained it for you and any other special needs folks out there.

Still, I can see it as a tough call for some. Support the Teamsters' position or support the President's. Really tough for you it seems, since you didn't even bother.

You chose to attack with name calling: "you people" "flaming leftists" rather than to extend the intellectual effort to understand and respond to the question.

Guess we'll put you down as supporting the adminstration on this one.

Oh yeah, we're also still waiting for your response to the morning after pill question. We've a long wait ahead, right?

[nacktman]

Originally posted by nudeM:
I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a Republican agenda.
Not entirely wrong it IS a 'republican' administration's agenda.

I believe that this has been in the works for quite some time.
True, that ... the cabal has been working toward this and similar goals since grandaddy Prescott's time and before.
I do not agree with it.
Ditto.
Our truckers (owners and operators) are bound by laws on our highways, bound by strict safety operational standards that if failed, the truck is pulled from the roads until the repairs are made.

Are these foreign trucks going to be held to these same standards? Probably not ...
Having lived in Mexico and seen the 'trucks' on the roads there, 'probably not' is a mistake ... 'most definitely not' is more accurate. There is no safety standards in Mexico, if you can make it run, you can drive it - also there is no pollution standards so there is not one Mexican truck that will pass minimal standards for either safety or emisions

I see the ideologues made an early appearance here and as per form bile and vitriol was all they could sputter, also true to form they did not answer the question posed. For mindless drones they have the playbook down pat.

[Sanslines]

I walked across the border from San Ysidro, Calif to Tijuana a couple of days ago. After business, I returned to the USA via walking. While waiting in one of the enormous lines that always seem to exist to enter the USA from Mexico, I looked around and noticed that 90 to 95 percent of those who were walking across the border to the USA are Mexicans.

Anyone who has ever spent any time in Tijuana (or to a lesser extent Ensenada) will understand the filthy and putrid conditions in these places. Looking at the Tijuana River is enough to make anyone very ill as the water is a dark brown with white foam - a purely toxic mix. Given these terrible conditions, it is easy to understand why so many Mexicans are attempting to come to the USA. They simply want to work and to provide for their families and they absolutely want to escape the hopeless and grinding poverty that exists for them in Mexico. The majority of Mexicans are good family people and will keep attempting to come to the USA for opportunities that do not exist in Mexico. They will work harder and for less money then many American citizens because they fully understand their roots of poverty and hopelessness. Building walls or creating treaties will not keep them out. Unions will not stop them for unions can not stop a man or woman who is motivated by hunger. The only solution to this sad problem is to create a fair and just system of opportunity in Mexico. Then and only then will Mexicans remain in Mexico.

Another very important point to be made here is that many of the so called Mexican truck drivers are actually Mexican Americans who have USA citizenship.

[usmc1]

Another uninformed and mostly non-sequitur like vote for the Republican administration's position.

[blackrebel]

EVERY TIME you type, you prove my point that LIBERALS like you are the intolerant and love to have a narrow view.

BOTH Dems and Reps have been caught doing wrong, yet you want to bash only the Reps. Why? If you knew me, you'd know that I AM a Rep, yet, will very much go up any Reps butt for wrong doing. In fact many of us Reps are that way. Sadly, you folks dont have too many friends who are on the right or else you'd know that we laugh at Sean Hannity, and those like him who are so narrow that they are an embarassment. By the way, MY friends are left, right and in the middle and all of them, even those on the left want to ignore people like you with narrow partisan bigots like you

Originally posted by usmc1:

quote:

Originally posted by blackrebel:
Your wording is TYPICAL of your people (FLAMING leftists) who can not ask a question from the middle. As usual, your wording is biased. (Do you really think up these questions, or are you copying these from MoveOn.org?)

Want some cred? Just ask the question WITHOUT the bias, for instance ... "Who are you going to side with on this one? Those who want to allow trucking from Mexico or those who dont want to allow it?" See how simple that is?

I don't see how it could be any simpler than I put it. I guess what threw you was my failure to completely dumb down and give a detailed explanation of that which was implicit in the question.

A quandry for conservative Republicans, where on one hand we have "gasp" the Teamsters in opposition to something most, if not all, conservatives oppose---further opening of our borders to Mexico and giving American jobs to Mexicans and on the other, a Republican administrtion hell-bent on doing that very thing!

Teamsters versus Republicans. Seems simple to me. And I think the rest of the responders got it. But, now I've explained it for you and any other special needs folks out there.

Still, I can see it as a tough call for some. Support the Teamsters' position or support the President's. Really tough for you it seems, since you didn't even bother.

You chose to attack with name calling: "you people" "flaming leftists" rather than to extend the intellectual effort to understand and respond to the question.

Guess we'll put you down as supporting the adminstration on this one.

Oh yeah, we're also still waiting for your response to the morning after pill question. We've a long wait ahead, right?