Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm paraphrasing, but Obama referred to the Constitution as representing a fundamental flaw which still exists today, and said it was a collection of negative rights.
A man like that should never appoint any justices. too bad we have the weakest, most incompetent bunch of repubs running the show, who will cave once again, and give Obama another anti-Constitutionalist justice.
Obama in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) interview:
Quote:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted.
...I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
What bothers me about this is that Obama's expressed beliefs directly contradict his Presidential Oath of Office.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Absolute worst case scenario for Republicans; they filibuster anybody Obama appoints. Hillary gets elected and the Democrats take Congress, and Hillary appoints Obama himself to the court. I would love to see the conservative butthurt if it played out like this.
Have you seen what's going on in this country right now? LOL
Obama in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) interview:
What bothers me about this is that Obama's expressed beliefs directly contradict his Presidential Oath of Office.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Something was slightly missing in the paraphrasing, than you.
No wonder employees are struggling and suffering, when people think like you have just presented. Do you think Unions are suppose to sit quiet, while big corporation PAY politicians to push anti-worker legislation to allow companies and the executive crews to screw over the workers. Gee Whiz!!!!!!!!
I'm not the poster you replied to, but here goes. This is an emotional rant. Corporations LEGALLY pay LOBBYISTS not politicians directly to push legislation. I don't necessarily have a high opinion of lobbyists, but it is my understanding that it would be impossible, without amending the constitution, to eliminate them. Be specific. What anti-worker legislation do you mean? Off the top of my head, the only legislation I can think of that you could come up with where I would agree is NAFTA. NAFTA may have been promoted by Bush 41, etc., but it was SIGNED INTO LAW by Bill Clinton, a DEMOCRAT. Clinton later said that he regrets having signed NAFTA.
Quote:
Yes, UNIONS SHOULD LOBBY CONGRESS, SUPPORT POLITICIANS WHO UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF UNIONS, They were not to represent companies, companies represent themselves, Unions is to represent the voice of the people IN RELATIONS TO THE ACTS AND ACTIONS companies do to disenfranchise employees.
Why do you have such an us and them attitude? Try doing a search for the 100 Best Companies to Work for in the U.S., click on some of the results, and learn about some of the things companies do to try to have the best corporate culture and the happiest employees possible. In many instances, employee turnover can be very expensive, so companies will look for different ways to minimize turnover.
Quote:
Go and study history, and look how the Unions helped change the dynamics of industry from abusive practices and disastrous work rule policies, and it gave employees a voice, where no single employee could have a voice.
Now, without Unions, a single employees speaks up they get fired, that would not be the case with Unions supporting a collective voice. The monster you speak of, evidently is "Corporations", making $100's of billions but won't pay people a decent wage and will not rebuild factories on American Soil.
'making 100's of billions but won't pay people a decent wage' is a liberal talking point.
1. The total amount of profit doesn't take into account the money the company to invest/expend to make that profit. Some liberals demonize highly profitable companies in industries they don't like, while never saying anything about companies they like who might have MUCH higher profit MARGINS.
I don't know what the current numbers are, but good examples would be Exxon Mobil and Apple. The last time I compared the two, Exxon Mobil's annual profit margin was under 10%, and Apple's was over 25%.
2. A publicly traded company's primary fiduciary duty is to the SHAREHOLDERS of the corporation, NOT the employees.
Quote:
Who the hell ever heard of such silly thing as we see today, of CEO's making 10's of Millions and being given Millions of share of stock, to ensure American don't work!!!!!! Every outsourced company see the Executives awards themselves HUGE pay raises.
CEOs aren't hired 'to ensure Americans don't work' . They are hired to maximize shareholder value, and are often very well compensated if they deliver. If both the shareholders and the board's compensation committee are 'asleep at the wheel', so to speak, then then the situation you speak of can occur. If companies feel that locating manufacturing plants in other countries will be more beneficial to shareholders, they are more likely to take that step. Consumers can voice their displeasure by voting with their dollars and trying to buy things made in the U.S.A. To some extent that is working, as I have seen 'Made in the U.S.A.' in a lot more advertising in the last couple of years than I did in the decade plus before that.
Quote:
It's insane some of the same people who were raised by Union working parents now fight against the very union function which helped the family live a middle class life. IT IS CRAZY!!!! but they are the same Antebellum Confederate minded ones who never wanted women, minorities and poor whites to have economic opportunity or means to economic equilibrium.
One reason might be because they understand globalization. What about male and female black conservatives who are well educated and are in the public eye? I guess they don't want women and minorities to have economic opportunity . Having a job where the pay may not be artificially inflated by the presence of a union is better than the job not being there at all. Where do you think the term 'The Rust Belt' came from. Jobs moved out of that area for multiple reasons, but union vs non-union labor was and is one of those reasons. see the quote below from a Wikipedia article:
"A March 3, 2008 Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that while Ohio lost 10,000 jobs in the past decade, Texas created 1.6 million new jobs. The editorial stated, Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians--and thus its employers--are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers." A September 13, 2008 opinion column by Phil Gramm and Mike Solon stated, "Yes, Michigan lost 83.000 auto manufacturing jobs during the past decade and a half, but more than 91,000 new auto manufacturing jobs sprung up in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, and Texas"."
Politicians in Michigan tried to help the situation (described briefly in the Wikipedia quote above) by making Michigan a Right-to-Work state, and they were met with union thuggery...violence...as exemplified in the link below
Auto manufacturing plants have continued to be built in Right-to-Work states in the American South since the Wall Street Journal editorials referred to above were published.
Quote:
This is how brainwashed Republican System of Big Industry has deluded people to be, and now we have some of the worst abuses in the work place imaginable, Unions was the last force to stand against outsourcing, and when the anti union people pushed out the Unions, it was not long before the company moved production offshore.
Then you had the FRESH out of University deluded mass, anguished at the rate of pay union members earned, when the FRESH out of University persons knew nothing about industry, had never worked a jobs and thought their 20 year old script being taught to them was the answer, the truly sad thing, is these people ended up in the executive suite, pushing their Anti-Union craziness. AS A RESULT all we have seen IS these University Minions claimed the company is all about them,
It sounds as though you are bitter that you don't have a college education. It is never too late .
Quote:
RESULT: CRASHED COMPANIES, BANKRUPT COMPANIES AND COMPANIES BEING BOUGHT AND SOLD AND WIPED OUT UNTIL AMERICA SUFFER'S FROM LACK OF INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY. Now, because of this silliness, we can't produce 40% of what we consume.
Nope, keep the republican system mentality, I prefer a system that supports Unions, employees and value, citizens, communities, state and nation.
Under the Obama Administration we have what is, IIRC, the longest period of time under 4% GDP growth in the history of this measurement in the United States. One of the primary reasons for this is government regulation, not the least of which is Obamacare. When George W. Bush (a Republican, obviously) helped usher in a LOWER capital gains tax RATE during his administration, this resulted in MORE REVENUE pouring into the federal government, NOT less. This point was brought up to Obama by a moderator during a debate with Hillary Clinton during the race for the 2008 nomination for the Dems.
Obama said he didn't care (that less revenue would come in for his programs), that he would still raise the capital gains tax rate if elected...out of a sense of fairness .
Quote:
Since the busting of Unions, We have seen nothing but bankrupt cities
Cities like Detroit went bankrupt largely because of the unions (especially ones of the public employee variety), not because unions were busted.
Quote:
even now the Grads can't get a jobs, when they should have been long ago relegated to start at the bottom and LEARN SOMETHING if they want to work their way up. But, Nope, we let the delusion of degree void out value, quality labor, quality products and everything that built America.
Decent paying jobs in skilled trades in many metros go begging. Not enough qualified workers to fill them. I think the media is partially to blame for this...the drumbeat of a college education, when some people might realize more of their potential learning a trade, which (depending on the skill) might be later leveraged into owning their own small business.
Quote:
What we have now is cheap imported products, being hawked by degree riders selling false claims, and pushing paper, and the biggest business is not business that sell cheap advertising.
Republican system and much of its membership was and IS so afraid, women, minorities and dire poor whites would become middle class, until they were desperate to bust up the Unions and remove any pathway for women, minorities and dire poor whites to have a quality of life standard and value for their labor to live the so called American Standard.
Now what do we have but a mass of broken down communities and broke cities and towns all across America.
More bitterness that you didn't get a college education?
Quote:
Yes,
Quote:
we need a PRO PEOPLE Justice of in the Supreme Court, someone who does not take the Constitution to only be a tool for the wealthy to use against the working people, we certainly do not need a Right Winger sitting on the Court who support interpretations which go against the working poor, or support sanction games of class-ism, gender bias and all the other madness of which Right Winger Minded so called Conservative such as what the Republican want to fill the court with, we don't need such craziness, we've had too much of that over the history of America's Justice system.
No, we don't. We need another justice who will pay strict attention to the U.S. Constitution, to the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. They put in place mechanisms to amend the constitution...if people aren't satisfied with the current content....which are described in article V (5). If you want the Supreme Court to be an unabashed activist tool of class warfare, then by all means spearhead a drive to amend the Constitution via one of the mechanisms described in article V (5).
Quote:
Talking to Republican System Mentality is like pee'ing on a brick and expecting a rose to grow. Republican system has taught their people to swear if you pee enough on a brick a rose garden will spring up.
.
When policies are in place that promote growth, then you get more growth. Many of Obama's policies have restricted growth
1. The total amount of profit doesn't take into account the money the company to invest/expend to make that profit.
Of course it does, Net profit, also referred to as the bottom line, net income, or net earnings is a measure of the profitability of a venture after accounting for all costs. Note the last two words "ALL COSTS"
Obama wants the Republicans to NOT do what he did. He chose to filibuster Alito. Fine. That's his choice. The Republicans can choose to filibuster whomever Obama nominates, as well. It would be no more of an obstructionist act than Obama's.
I'm sick of hearing all this Rs are obstructionists BS when it was Harry Reid who permanently delayed over 300 House bills that were sent to the Senate for a vote. And when it was Obama and the Dems who locked the Rs and the public out of the Obamacare negotiations, after Obama had campaigned on doing exactly the opposite. Obama and the Dems tried to blame the government shutdown due to their objection to the sequester cuts on the Rs, and then when called on it, Obama had to admit the sequester cuts came from his own Admin. Just STOP the BS. I'm sick of it, and I know many others are, too.
Of course it does, Net profit, also referred to as the bottom line, net income, or net earnings is a measure of the profitability of a venture after accounting for all costs. Note the last two words "ALL COSTS"
What I was trying to illustrate, perhaps not as eloquently as I could have, is that the person I was replying to was focusing just on the amount of profit, not the profit margin. Some people (whiners, IMO) demonize total profit if they feel the company is gouging/being greedy/whatever label for that floats your boat, when profit margin is a much more accurate reflection of 'gouging'. I think Apple and Exxon Mobil are good examples. Some people like to demonize Exxon Mobil directly re total profit, Apple gets criticized re issues with Foxconn, etc., but I don't remember hearing of Apple being demonized for their profits, even though their margins are much higher than Exxon Mobil and other oil companies. IMO, a prime reason for this is that Apple is 'in' with the politically correct crowd and Exxon Mobil, for example, is not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. They are hired to maximize shareholder value, and are often very well compensated if they deliver. If both the shareholders and the board's compensation committee are 'asleep at the wheel', so to speak, then then the situation you speak of can occur. If companies feel that locating manufacturing plants in other countries will be more beneficial to shareholders, they are more likely to take that step. Consumers can voice their displeasure by voting with their dollars and trying to buy things made in the U.S.A. To some extent that is working, as I have seen 'Made in the U.S.A.' in a lot more advertising in the last couple of years than I did in the decade plus before that. 
.
All of this ^^^^^
