IN THE PAST decade, the AFL-CIO has lobbied Congress on three major issues
of any importance to union members:

(1) Oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement;
(2) Oppose permanent normal trade relations with China;
(3) Support drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The unions lost every vote. Demonstrating his savvy political skills, the
head of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, repeatedly throws the federation's
support to political candidates who opposed labor on all three issues. So if
you ever find yourself negotiating with Sweeney, make sure your opening bid
is "nothing."

Sweeney's curious lose-at-any-price strategy has cost the unions everything.
The only two Democratic presidential candidates to vote with the unions on
any of these issues -- not all, but any -- were Representatives Dick
Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. Gephardt was out of the race after the first
primary, and Kucinich can't break beyond the Aliens-Kidnapped-My-Mother
crowd. (Dennis Kucinich did his tax return this week, and under "occupation"
he wrote "Jay Leno punch line.")

There is only one candidate for president who didn't vote for NAFTA, didn't
vote for trade with China and supported drilling in ANWR. That candidate is
George Bush. He got into office by beating Al Gore -- the guy who was the
head cheerleader for NAFTA. And unlike Dick Gephardt, Bush spends more time
on the phone with Jimmy Hoffa than with Barbra Streisand. As president, Bush
enraged free traders -- and our precious European "allies" -- by imposing
tariffs on steel imports.

Sweeney has rewarded Bush by calling him a "horror" for organized labor.
Apparently what "organized labor" really wants isn't good jobs at good
wages, but ... abortion on demand! The AFL-CIO has vowed to devote massive
union resources against Bush in the crucial swing states of Missouri, Ohio
and Florida in the coming election.

Strictly following his strategy of selling union votes for nothing, the
AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. John Kerry -- who voted for NAFTA, voted for trade
with China and voted against drilling for oil in Alaska. Skilled laborers
will have to wait another day for "fair trade" and high-paying jobs in
Alaska, but at least Sweeney's candidate supports the issues that really
matter to the average blue-collar worker: gay marriage, global warming
treaties and hybrid cars.

Kerry denounces "Benedict Arnold" CEOs who ship "American jobs overseas."
(Experts are still trying to figure out why Kerry didn't mention his service
in Vietnam in that statement.) Sweeney seems to be satisfied with Kerry's
explanation that -- like his vote for war with Iraq -- he voted for free
trade, but then was shocked when free trade resulted.

Sen. John Edwards calls protection of U.S. jobs "a moral issue." Reminding
audiences that he is the son of a mill worker almost as often as Kerry
mentions that he served in Vietnam, Edwards says that "when we talk about
trade, we are talking about values." As the son of a mill worker, he has
seen with his "own eyes" what bad trade agreements "do to people." Of the
evil trade agreements (supported by AFL-CIO's candidate) Edwards says:
"Those trade deals were wrong. They cost us too many jobs and lowered our
standards."

Except -- like Kerry -- Edwards also voted for those trade agreements every
chance he got. In 2000, Edwards voted for trade with China. Having seen with
his "own eyes" what happens "when the mill shuts down," Edwards voted to
shut down a few more mills. Edwards also voted his conscience to oppose
drilling in Alaska. Whenever Edwards' conscience speaks to him, it sounds
remarkably like Barbra Streisand.

Edwards' only fig leaf for claiming he backs labor is a hypothetical vote he
never actually cast. He bravely claims he would have voted against NAFTA --
if only he had been in the Senate when it came up for a vote.

That's an interesting moral calculus. Edwards didn't mind forcing American
workers to compete with a billion Chinese -- famously including child
workers and slave laborers. But trade with Canada and Mexico he says would
have offended his delicate moral sensibilities.

In his stump speech, Edwards implies he ran against Jesse Helms by saying he
beat "the Jesse Helms machine" to win his Senate seat. It was a real David
and Goliath match-up -- pitting a poor, beleaguered multimillionaire trial
lawyer against an elderly senator of humble means. But the mere mention of
Helms' name invariably elicits sneers from the party of the little guy.

Helms voted with the AFL-CIO on all three big labor issues -- against NAFTA,
against trade with China and for half a million good jobs in Alaska. Indeed,
Helms was one of the main lobbyists against trade with China. The guy
Edwards actually beat, Lauch Faircloth, was in the Senate for only one of
these votes. The AFL-CIO didn't have to take Faircloth's word on how he
might have voted on NAFTA: He voted against it. The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards
and opposed Faircloth and Helms.

It's not particularly surprising that the party of trial lawyers,
environmentalists and Hollywood actresses keeps voting against blue collar
workers. What's strange is that the AFL-CIO keeps voting against blue-collar
workers, too.


47 days to go..

RGrew176 wrote:

IN THE PAST decade, the AFL-CIO has lobbied Congress on three major issues
of any importance to union members:

(1) Oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement;
(2) Oppose permanent normal trade relations with China;
(3) Support drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


That's correct, and not only that, in two of the three cases you cite,
in my opinion, the AFL-CIO was on the side of the angels: opposition to
NAFTA and opposition to full permanent trade relations with the PRC. On
the other hand, I do understand why the AFL supported the oil drilling
measures.

The beauty of the Democratic side of the spectrum is that we Democrats
agree on some issues, and disagree on others, but we don't hold go off
the deep end into the Democratic version of the krazy konservatism that
has the Republican Party in such a visegrip.

Appears that you may need a third national party more in tune with labour.
ours is called 'The New Democratic Party'
The two older..Liberals & Conservatives have always taken turns ruling since
Confederation in 1867.

RGrew176 wrote in message
...
IN THE PAST decade, the AFL-CIO has lobbied Congress on three major issues
of any importance to union members:

(1) Oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement;
(2) Oppose permanent normal trade relations with China;
(3) Support drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The unions lost every vote. Demonstrating his savvy political skills, the
head of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, repeatedly throws the federation's
support to political candidates who opposed labor on all three issues. So
if
you ever find yourself negotiating with Sweeney, make sure your opening
bid
is "nothing."

Sweeney's curious lose-at-any-price strategy has cost the unions
everything.
The only two Democratic presidential candidates to vote with the unions on
any of these issues -- not all, but any -- were Representatives Dick
Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. Gephardt was out of the race after the first
primary, and Kucinich can't break beyond the Aliens-Kidnapped-My-Mother
crowd. (Dennis Kucinich did his tax return this week, and under
"occupation"
he wrote "Jay Leno punch line.")

There is only one candidate for president who didn't vote for NAFTA,
didn't
vote for trade with China and supported drilling in ANWR. That candidate
is
George Bush. He got into office by beating Al Gore -- the guy who was the
head cheerleader for NAFTA. And unlike Dick Gephardt, Bush spends more
time
on the phone with Jimmy Hoffa than with Barbra Streisand. As president,
Bush
enraged free traders -- and our precious European "allies" -- by imposing
tariffs on steel imports.

Sweeney has rewarded Bush by calling him a "horror" for organized labor.
Apparently what "organized labor" really wants isn't good jobs at good
wages, but ... abortion on demand! The AFL-CIO has vowed to devote massive
union resources against Bush in the crucial swing states of Missouri, Ohio
and Florida in the coming election.

Strictly following his strategy of selling union votes for nothing, the
AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. John Kerry -- who voted for NAFTA, voted for
trade
with China and voted against drilling for oil in Alaska. Skilled laborers
will have to wait another day for "fair trade" and high-paying jobs in
Alaska, but at least Sweeney's candidate supports the issues that really
matter to the average blue-collar worker: gay marriage, global warming
treaties and hybrid cars.

Kerry denounces "Benedict Arnold" CEOs who ship "American jobs overseas."
(Experts are still trying to figure out why Kerry didn't mention his
service
in Vietnam in that statement.) Sweeney seems to be satisfied with Kerry's
explanation that -- like his vote for war with Iraq -- he voted for free
trade, but then was shocked when free trade resulted.

Sen. John Edwards calls protection of U.S. jobs "a moral issue." Reminding
audiences that he is the son of a mill worker almost as often as Kerry
mentions that he served in Vietnam, Edwards says that "when we talk about
trade, we are talking about values." As the son of a mill worker, he has
seen with his "own eyes" what bad trade agreements "do to people." Of the
evil trade agreements (supported by AFL-CIO's candidate) Edwards says:
"Those trade deals were wrong. They cost us too many jobs and lowered our
standards."

Except -- like Kerry -- Edwards also voted for those trade agreements
every
chance he got. In 2000, Edwards voted for trade with China. Having seen
with
his "own eyes" what happens "when the mill shuts down," Edwards voted to
shut down a few more mills. Edwards also voted his conscience to oppose
drilling in Alaska. Whenever Edwards' conscience speaks to him, it sounds
remarkably like Barbra Streisand.

Edwards' only fig leaf for claiming he backs labor is a hypothetical vote
he
never actually cast. He bravely claims he would have voted against
NAFTA --
if only he had been in the Senate when it came up for a vote.

That's an interesting moral calculus. Edwards didn't mind forcing American
workers to compete with a billion Chinese -- famously including child
workers and slave laborers. But trade with Canada and Mexico he says would
have offended his delicate moral sensibilities.

In his stump speech, Edwards implies he ran against Jesse Helms by saying
he
beat "the Jesse Helms machine" to win his Senate seat. It was a real David
and Goliath match-up -- pitting a poor, beleaguered multimillionaire trial
lawyer against an elderly senator of humble means. But the mere mention of
Helms' name invariably elicits sneers from the party of the little guy.

Helms voted with the AFL-CIO on all three big labor issues -- against
NAFTA,
against trade with China and for half a million good jobs in Alaska.
Indeed,
Helms was one of the main lobbyists against trade with China. The guy
Edwards actually beat, Lauch Faircloth, was in the Senate for only one of
these votes. The AFL-CIO didn't have to take Faircloth's word on how he
might have voted on NAFTA: He voted against it. The AFL-CIO endorsed
Edwards
and opposed Faircloth and Helms.

It's not particularly surprising that the party of trial lawyers,
environmentalists and Hollywood actresses keeps voting against blue collar
workers. What's strange is that the AFL-CIO keeps voting against
blue-collar
workers, too.


47 days to go..

RGrew176 wrote:



The Harry liar unionists don't give hoot about the USA not even the
members they ally care about ripping people off.

They all just lie lie lie look at the performance of idiot krause here,
what a sad lying grub


K



IN THE PAST decade, the AFL-CIO has lobbied Congress on three major issues
of any importance to union members:

(1) Oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement;
(2) Oppose permanent normal trade relations with China;
(3) Support drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The unions lost every vote. Demonstrating his savvy political skills, the
head of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, repeatedly throws the federation's
support to political candidates who opposed labor on all three issues. So if
you ever find yourself negotiating with Sweeney, make sure your opening bid
is "nothing."

Sweeney's curious lose-at-any-price strategy has cost the unions everything.
The only two Democratic presidential candidates to vote with the unions on
any of these issues -- not all, but any -- were Representatives Dick
Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. Gephardt was out of the race after the first
primary, and Kucinich can't break beyond the Aliens-Kidnapped-My-Mother
crowd. (Dennis Kucinich did his tax return this week, and under "occupation"
he wrote "Jay Leno punch line.")

There is only one candidate for president who didn't vote for NAFTA, didn't
vote for trade with China and supported drilling in ANWR. That candidate is
George Bush. He got into office by beating Al Gore -- the guy who was the
head cheerleader for NAFTA. And unlike Dick Gephardt, Bush spends more time
on the phone with Jimmy Hoffa than with Barbra Streisand. As president, Bush
enraged free traders -- and our precious European "allies" -- by imposing
tariffs on steel imports.

Sweeney has rewarded Bush by calling him a "horror" for organized labor.
Apparently what "organized labor" really wants isn't good jobs at good
wages, but ... abortion on demand! The AFL-CIO has vowed to devote massive
union resources against Bush in the crucial swing states of Missouri, Ohio
and Florida in the coming election.

Strictly following his strategy of selling union votes for nothing, the
AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. John Kerry -- who voted for NAFTA, voted for trade
with China and voted against drilling for oil in Alaska. Skilled laborers
will have to wait another day for "fair trade" and high-paying jobs in
Alaska, but at least Sweeney's candidate supports the issues that really
matter to the average blue-collar worker: gay marriage, global warming
treaties and hybrid cars.

Kerry denounces "Benedict Arnold" CEOs who ship "American jobs overseas."
(Experts are still trying to figure out why Kerry didn't mention his service
in Vietnam in that statement.) Sweeney seems to be satisfied with Kerry's
explanation that -- like his vote for war with Iraq -- he voted for free
trade, but then was shocked when free trade resulted.

Sen. John Edwards calls protection of U.S. jobs "a moral issue." Reminding
audiences that he is the son of a mill worker almost as often as Kerry
mentions that he served in Vietnam, Edwards says that "when we talk about
trade, we are talking about values." As the son of a mill worker, he has
seen with his "own eyes" what bad trade agreements "do to people." Of the
evil trade agreements (supported by AFL-CIO's candidate) Edwards says:
"Those trade deals were wrong. They cost us too many jobs and lowered our
standards."

Except -- like Kerry -- Edwards also voted for those trade agreements every
chance he got. In 2000, Edwards voted for trade with China. Having seen with
his "own eyes" what happens "when the mill shuts down," Edwards voted to
shut down a few more mills. Edwards also voted his conscience to oppose
drilling in Alaska. Whenever Edwards' conscience speaks to him, it sounds
remarkably like Barbra Streisand.

Edwards' only fig leaf for claiming he backs labor is a hypothetical vote he
never actually cast. He bravely claims he would have voted against NAFTA --
if only he had been in the Senate when it came up for a vote.

That's an interesting moral calculus. Edwards didn't mind forcing American
workers to compete with a billion Chinese -- famously including child
workers and slave laborers. But trade with Canada and Mexico he says would
have offended his delicate moral sensibilities.

In his stump speech, Edwards implies he ran against Jesse Helms by saying he
beat "the Jesse Helms machine" to win his Senate seat. It was a real David
and Goliath match-up -- pitting a poor, beleaguered multimillionaire trial
lawyer against an elderly senator of humble means. But the mere mention of
Helms' name invariably elicits sneers from the party of the little guy.

Helms voted with the AFL-CIO on all three big labor issues -- against NAFTA,
against trade with China and for half a million good jobs in Alaska. Indeed,
Helms was one of the main lobbyists against trade with China. The guy
Edwards actually beat, Lauch Faircloth, was in the Senate for only one of
these votes. The AFL-CIO didn't have to take Faircloth's word on how he
might have voted on NAFTA: He voted against it. The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards
and opposed Faircloth and Helms.

It's not particularly surprising that the party of trial lawyers,
environmentalists and Hollywood actresses keeps voting against blue collar
workers. What's strange is that the AFL-CIO keeps voting against blue-collar
workers, too.


47 days to go..

K. Smith wrote:



The Harry liar unionists don't give hoot about the USA not even the
members they ally care about ripping people off.

They all just lie lie lie look at the performance of idiot krause here,
what a sad lying grub


K



Ahh, our Australian has returned after a few hits on the bottle and a
few injections of heroin...

"RGrew176" wrote in message

IN THE PAST decade, the AFL-CIO has lobbied Congress on three major issues
of any importance to union members:

(1) Oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement;
(2) Oppose permanent normal trade relations with China;
(3) Support drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The unions lost every vote. Demonstrating his savvy political skills, the
head of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, repeatedly throws the federation's
support to political candidates who opposed labor on all three issues.

....What's strange is that the AFL-CIO keeps voting against blue-collar
workers, too.

Not so strange. High level union officials enjoy generous salaries,
benefits, expense accounts, general hobnobbing, and living life in an
atmosphere of power. Their objective is to preserve this status quo. To do
this, their unions must remain "activist." Complacency among the rank and
file is not acceptable. To keep the pot stirred, membership must remain
convinced they are being continually defrauded or mistreated by big
corporations and/or the government. This is where hacks like Harry come in,
keeping the members misinformed and highly ****ed. Remember, people on the
Democrat side do not want to *resolve* issues, they merely want to *own* the
issues.

On 28 Feb 2004 22:37:37 GMT, (RGrew176) wrote:

IN THE PAST decade, the AFL-CIO has lobbied Congress on three major issues
of any importance to union members:

(1) Oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement;
(2) Oppose permanent normal trade relations with China;
(3) Support drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The unions lost every vote. Demonstrating his savvy political skills, the
head of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, repeatedly throws the federation's
support to political candidates who opposed labor on all three issues. So if
you ever find yourself negotiating with Sweeney, make sure your opening bid
is "nothing."

Sweeney's curious lose-at-any-price strategy has cost the unions everything.
The only two Democratic presidential candidates to vote with the unions on
any of these issues -- not all, but any -- were Representatives Dick
Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. Gephardt was out of the race after the first
primary, and Kucinich can't break beyond the Aliens-Kidnapped-My-Mother
crowd. (Dennis Kucinich did his tax return this week, and under "occupation"
he wrote "Jay Leno punch line.")

There is only one candidate for president who didn't vote for NAFTA, didn't
vote for trade with China and supported drilling in ANWR. That candidate is
George Bush. He got into office by beating Al Gore -- the guy who was the
head cheerleader for NAFTA. And unlike Dick Gephardt, Bush spends more time
on the phone with Jimmy Hoffa than with Barbra Streisand. As president, Bush
enraged free traders -- and our precious European "allies" -- by imposing
tariffs on steel imports.

Sweeney has rewarded Bush by calling him a "horror" for organized labor.
Apparently what "organized labor" really wants isn't good jobs at good
wages, but ... abortion on demand! The AFL-CIO has vowed to devote massive
union resources against Bush in the crucial swing states of Missouri, Ohio
and Florida in the coming election.

Strictly following his strategy of selling union votes for nothing, the
AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. John Kerry -- who voted for NAFTA, voted for trade
with China and voted against drilling for oil in Alaska. Skilled laborers
will have to wait another day for "fair trade" and high-paying jobs in
Alaska, but at least Sweeney's candidate supports the issues that really
matter to the average blue-collar worker: gay marriage, global warming
treaties and hybrid cars.

Kerry denounces "Benedict Arnold" CEOs who ship "American jobs overseas."
(Experts are still trying to figure out why Kerry didn't mention his service
in Vietnam in that statement.) Sweeney seems to be satisfied with Kerry's
explanation that -- like his vote for war with Iraq -- he voted for free
trade, but then was shocked when free trade resulted.

Sen. John Edwards calls protection of U.S. jobs "a moral issue." Reminding
audiences that he is the son of a mill worker almost as often as Kerry
mentions that he served in Vietnam, Edwards says that "when we talk about
trade, we are talking about values." As the son of a mill worker, he has
seen with his "own eyes" what bad trade agreements "do to people." Of the
evil trade agreements (supported by AFL-CIO's candidate) Edwards says:
"Those trade deals were wrong. They cost us too many jobs and lowered our
standards."

Except -- like Kerry -- Edwards also voted for those trade agreements every
chance he got. In 2000, Edwards voted for trade with China. Having seen with
his "own eyes" what happens "when the mill shuts down," Edwards voted to
shut down a few more mills. Edwards also voted his conscience to oppose
drilling in Alaska. Whenever Edwards' conscience speaks to him, it sounds
remarkably like Barbra Streisand.

Edwards' only fig leaf for claiming he backs labor is a hypothetical vote he
never actually cast. He bravely claims he would have voted against NAFTA --
if only he had been in the Senate when it came up for a vote.

That's an interesting moral calculus. Edwards didn't mind forcing American
workers to compete with a billion Chinese -- famously including child
workers and slave laborers. But trade with Canada and Mexico he says would
have offended his delicate moral sensibilities.

In his stump speech, Edwards implies he ran against Jesse Helms by saying he
beat "the Jesse Helms machine" to win his Senate seat. It was a real David
and Goliath match-up -- pitting a poor, beleaguered multimillionaire trial
lawyer against an elderly senator of humble means. But the mere mention of
Helms' name invariably elicits sneers from the party of the little guy.

Helms voted with the AFL-CIO on all three big labor issues -- against NAFTA,
against trade with China and for half a million good jobs in Alaska. Indeed,
Helms was one of the main lobbyists against trade with China. The guy
Edwards actually beat, Lauch Faircloth, was in the Senate for only one of
these votes. The AFL-CIO didn't have to take Faircloth's word on how he
might have voted on NAFTA: He voted against it. The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards
and opposed Faircloth and Helms.

It's not particularly surprising that the party of trial lawyers,
environmentalists and Hollywood actresses keeps voting against blue collar
workers. What's strange is that the AFL-CIO keeps voting against blue-collar
workers, too.


47 days to go..

Very informative. Thank you.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:09:42 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

K. Smith wrote:



The Harry liar unionists don't give hoot about the USA not even the
members they ally care about ripping people off.

They all just lie lie lie look at the performance of idiot krause here,
what a sad lying grub


K



Ahh, our Australian has returned after a few hits on the bottle and a
few injections of heroin...

And swatted a mosquito...

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:09:42 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

K. Smith wrote:



The Harry liar unionists don't give hoot about the USA not even the
members they ally care about ripping people off.

They all just lie lie lie look at the performance of idiot krause here,
what a sad lying grub


K



Ahh, our Australian has returned after a few hits on the bottle and a
few injections of heroin...

Harry, I'm sure your ego has you focused on your posts, and I didn't
want you to miss this enlightening bit from John, so I'll post it here
for you:

"Not so strange. High level union officials enjoy generous salaries,
benefits, expense accounts, general hobnobbing, and living life in an
atmosphere of power. Their objective is to preserve this status quo.
To do
this, their unions must remain "activist." Complacency among the
rank and
file is not acceptable. To keep the pot stirred, membership must
remain
convinced they are being continually defrauded or mistreated by big
corporations and/or the government. This is where hacks like Harry
come in,
keeping the members misinformed and highly ****ed. Remember, people
on the
Democrat side do not want to *resolve* issues, they merely want to
*own* the
issues."

Send your thanks to John Gaquin.


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

If you post O.T.your a dumbazz,if you post o.t. with a false name , you are a
coward and and Azhole!