Dean's "Re-Regulation" Of American Business

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Ohhh yeaaahhh!.... Taft takin' out the garbage, and bustin' them trusts...

Who is the man who's always in demand?

TAFT!

Yeah, he's one bad mutha -

Shut your mouth!

What? I'm just talkin' bout Taft...

Damned funny!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by TCO

Of interest, the WSJ is in favor of an expanded bracero program.

Let 'em stay a few years in the U.S. and eat fast food and I guarantee a lot of those Braceros are going to be expanded.

[Ramo]

Of interest, the WSJ is in favor of an expanded bracero program.

Which keeps Mexican immigrant workers in a nebulous legal position where they can be prevented from getting uppity and organizing/striking by using the state's threat of deportation if they ever lose their jobs. As is usually the case by the right, the liberty the immigrants get is in name only.

[Ramo]

I never said it was. I referred clearly to the soft money.

Which hasn't come into play in Dean's campaign yet.

[Zylka]

brown leprechaun?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I see. Another victim of Democrat propaganda.

I reported earlier that Affirmative action with quota's and timetables was a Nixon program. The Republicans were key to passing both Civil Rights acts. Eisenhower sent in the troops to enforce Brown v. Board of Education.

The opposition to illegal immigration is due to the strain the immigrants cause on the state budgets and because illegal aliens use mandated government services but do not pay taxes. Business are generally in favor of more legal immigration so that they can hire skilled workers. It is the UNIONS who oppose immigration because they represent wage competition.

So, take your proganda and go to hell.

Nixon = repug
Have you already forgotten Strom Thurmond? I guess the republicans just want to forget about all the racism, and injustice they have caused over more than a century. He ran for president on an segregationist platform and he even won a state. Those states today vote repug. Ooops. You ****ed up again there Ned. But thats alright. You can join the legions of repugs who have institutional amnesia
Who says that any people should have mandated government services?

[Ned]

Strom Thurmon was a Southern Democrat who ran for president as a Dixiecrat. Why are you associating that campaign with Republicans?

Now, if you believe that such people cannot change and that Thurmon must have remained a segregationist his entire life, I give you Robert F. Byrd, Senate Democrat majority leader and member of the KKK.

Lawrence of the Lie, citing to particular politicians can go on this way forever. Most of the segregationists were from the South. Almost all of the began as Democrats. They were Democrats when Eisenhower sent in the troops. They were Democrats when Nixon began affirmative action. They switched parties when the Democrats went soft on communism and elected McGovern.

Republicans have been gaining power in the South only recently. Whatever segregation that went on there since the civil war is the responsibility of only one party, and it is NOT the Republican Party.

Your distorted view of history is highly distateful.

[uh Clem]

Strom Thurmond switched parties in 1964. The proximate cause was the (Democratic) Johnson administration's push for the Civil Rights bill in Congress.

Goldwater (Republican) voted against it, and carried only Deep South states (plus Arizona) in the presidentail election that year. It's pretty obvious where his support was coming from.

I remember these events quite well.

As always, I have to mention that this is how things were here on Earth; I can't speak for Planet Ned.

[Berzerker]

I guess the republicans just want to forget about all the racism, and injustice they have caused over more than a century.

Wow! It was the GOP that supported or created slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, etc going back more than a century?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yes, it was the GOP who supported segregation. Yes it was President Lincoln (GOP) who said "If I can save the Union without freeing a slave I will do it. If I can save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I will do it." Yes it was the GOP who

Now, if you believe that such people cannot change and that Thurmon must have remained a segregationist his entire life, I give you Robert F. Byrd, Senate Democrat majority leader and member of the KKK.

Now where have I said that I support the democrats? And btw, Strom Thurmond was the biggest of weasels. He flip flopped on segregation because he saw how the wind was blowing. He said whatever he could to get elected, which proves that his electorate were racist.

They switched parties when the Democrats went soft on communism and elected McGovern.

Tell me how Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, a dozen middle eastern and latin american countries constitute a threat to US security. Oh yeah, they don't. Thats not soft on communism. Thats not sending off the poor of america to fight for the rich, elitists whos asses arnt on the line.

[Ned]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Strom Thurmond switched parties in 1964. The proximate cause was the (Democratic) Johnson administration's push for the Civil Rights bill in Congress.

Goldwater (Republican) voted against it, and carried only Deep South states (plus Arizona) in the presidentail election that year. It's pretty obvious where his support was coming from.

I remember these events quite well.

As always, I have to mention that this is how things were here on Earth; I can't speak for Planet Ned.

"Byline: Thomas Sowell
Dateline: September 28, 2000
No group votes more solidly for the Democrats than blacks - and no group suffers more as a result than blacks. Political spin makes Democrats the best friends of blacks, the party of civil rights laws, the party of affirmative action and the party of social programs to help the poor in general and blacks in particular. But spin and facts are very different things. The fact is that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite all the media hype about the confederate flag flying over the state capitol in South Carolina, no Republican put that flag there.

The Democrats' Senator Fritz Hollings, who was governor of South Carolina in the 1960s, put that confederate flag there at a time when it was used all across the South as a symbol of resistance to the civil rights movement. With all the criticism of Texas Governor George W. Bush for not telling the state of South Carolina what to do, there was scarcely a word anywhere about Democrat Fritz Hollings. That's the media for you."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/fol...ks.member.html

Uh Clem, care to tell what party controlled the South when it seceeded? Which party controlled the South through the latter half of the 19th and for most of the 20th. Tell us who supported slavery and who supported segregation?

According to earlier posts here, it was the Republicans. But in truth, it was the Democrats.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Yes, it was the GOP who supported segregation. Yes it was President Lincoln (GOP) who said "If I can save the Union without freeing a slave I will do it. If I can save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I will do it."

Lawrence of the Leftist Propaganda, do you truly believe that the civil war was fought over States Rights and that Lincoln was not steadfastly opposed to slavery but actually supported it?

[Japher]

We can find racism, or the seemingness of it, in both (or any) party. Democrats, however, are more quick at pointing it out, and a lot better at whinning about until the force the nay-sayer from their political seat. Republicans need to do a better job at this (Robert Byrd).

Democrats also endorse programs to keep the minorities poor. They support legislation to extend welfare, to keep the poor poor, so they can get votes. Then, when they can't figure out what is going on, they hand over their problems to Republicans to fix (i.e. hunger in welfare since Newt got a hold of it).

Democratic party was founded on the basis to oppose Lincoln and anti-slavery laws.

Why anybody is a Democrat is beyond me, yet why any self respecting minority would be a Democrat just baffles me.

[Ramo]

Ned, can you put down your partisan blinders for a minute and take a good look at reality? Let's go over this one more time:

Racist democratics joined the Republican ticket after the Civil Rights Act (put together and pushed by a Democratic administration) and Goldwater's Southern strategy. Nowadays, the South is almost completely Republican. Thus, the Republicans, not the Democrats, inherit most of the political baggage of the South.

No group votes more solidly for the Democrats than blacks - and no group suffers more as a result than blacks. Political spin makes Democrats the best friends of blacks, the party of civil rights laws, the party of affirmative action and the party of social programs to help the poor in general and blacks in particular. But spin and facts are very different things.

It is the party of civil rights laws, the party of affirmative action, and the party of social programs (if you exclude third parties). Are you trying to tell me that Republicans support these things more than Democrats (now, not many decades years ago)?

The fact is that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite all the media hype about the confederate flag flying over the state capitol in South Carolina, no Republican put that flag there.

And it's Republicans who want to keep it there. In fact, when Mississippi's Governer recently removed that symbol of hate and racism from the state capitol building, the Republicans got angry and kicked him out of office.

[Ramo]

Democratic party was founded on the basis to oppose Lincoln and anti-slavery laws.

Other way around, the Republican party was founded on the basis to oppose slavery laws in the territories. And of course, Lincoln hijacked the party with his agenda to redistribute income from poor farmers to rich industrialists.

Democrats also endorse programs to keep the minorities poor. They support legislation to extend welfare, to keep the poor poor, so they can get votes. Then, when they can't figure out what is going on, they hand over their problems to Republicans to fix (i.e. hunger in welfare since Newt got a hold of it).

Welfare keeps minorities poor? I guess they were all rolling in dough before all of those damn social programs. If I didn't have a public education, I bet I'd be a millionare by now!

[Ned]

Here is a fascinating history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republican Everett Dirksen organized the Republicans to vote with Northern Democrats to break the filibuster by Southern Democrats.

"On June 10,1964, after an impassioned plea by Dirksen on behalf of the compromise bill, the Senate voted 71 to 29 to close off the civil rights filibuster. Every member of the Senate was present for the vote, including Senator Engle of California who had suffered a stroke and could not speak but pointed to his eye as a sign of his "aye" vote. The margin was four votes larger than the 67 required. It ended 57 days of debate, the longest debate since the cloture rule had been adopted in 1917. Forty four Democrats and 27 Republicans supported cloture; 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans opposed it. "

Earlier in the piece, it shows that the Republicans in the House voted heavily in favor of the Act. It also shows that Republicans had always had a record, 96%, in supporting civil rights legislation since 1933 while the Democrats had an 80% record of opposing such legislation.

"Since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes. "

http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html

[Ned]

Ramo, what was Lincoln's speech of a "House divided against itself cannot stand" speech all about? It certainly was not about slavery in the territories.

Also, the Republican Party has had always had a solid record on civil rights even though the black leadership is Democrat. That record has not changed despite the recent election in the South of Republicans to state office. As the historical record shows, Republicans supported civil rights legislation 96% of the time. Democrats opposed such legislation 80% of the time prior to 1964. That is when they switched, at least in the North, to supporting such legislation.

All you can say about the South is that they are still behind the rest of the country on these issues. This does not mean that the Republican Party as a whole is in favor of or responsible for segregation for 100 years! as was stated by Lawrence the liar.

[Ned]

Ramo, on today's issues, the answer is also yes. Republicans want to reform the Welfare laws to incent work and to promote families. Democrats are uniformly in opposition. Only by working and by forming families can the majority of blacks ever hope to break out of the cycle of poverty they are in.

Republicans, not Democrats, support vouchers. Only vouchers can hope to bring the poor black better education as the public school system in the ghetto is a complete failure.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Thats a new low. Quoting Rush Limbaugh, the hypocrite druggy who didnt go to jail because he's rich and famous.

Lawrence of the Leftist Propaganda, do you truly believe that the civil war was fought over States Rights and that Lincoln was not steadfastly opposed to slavery but actually supported it?

The civil war was fought over states rights. As for what Lincoln thought, I cant say.

Hey Ned, try reading the 1964 Civil Rights acts.

Title IV Authorized but did not require withdrawal of federal funds from programs which practiced discrimination.

Title III Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U. S. AttorneyGeneral to file suits to force desegregation, but did not authorize busing as a means to overcome segregation based on residence.

Title II Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining "private," thereby allowing a loophole.*

Title V Outlawed discrimination in employment in any business exceeding twenty five people and creates an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to review complaints, although it lacked meaningful enforcement powers

Maybe the reason why all those repugs supported this legislation is that it doesnt do anything. It 'encourages' desegregation, outlaws descrimination is business over 25 people (how about under 25? why can they still be descriminated against?)

The list goes on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It 'encourages' desegregation, outlaws descrimination is business over 25 people (how about under 25? why can they still be descriminated against?)

Funny that forced busing (a HORRIBLE idea, btw) came from that encouragment of desegregation and Brown v. Board of Education.

And why over 25 employees? Because they don't want to run into interstate commerce issues, and it just isn't feasible to require every small employer to follow every law, because it'd be total mess on the enforcement side. You'll notice that almost every requirement to private businesses applies only to those with over 20 (such as COBRA) or 25 or 30 employees.

exempted private clubs without defining "private," thereby allowing a loophole.

And also not violating the freedom of association of those groups.

creates an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to review complaints, although it lacked meaningful enforcement powers

*Looks at the EEOC*

Uh... yeah. No meaningful enforcement power, eh?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And also not violating the freedom of association of those groups.

So then why not define it? Because it wasnt meant to allow freedom of association.

And why over 25 employees? Because they don't want to run into interstate commerce issues, and it just isn't feasible to require every small employer to follow every law, because it'd be total mess on the enforcement side

So thats why we make it illegal to not wear your seatbelt because it is easy to enforce? Well its easy to enforce a law which prohibits chewing gum, but that doesnt mean we should pass it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So then why not define it? Because it wasnt meant to allow freedom of association.

They were taking it away for those groups involved in interstate commerce, but they could not justify taking away the freedom of association for those private clubs... and neither can I, frankly.

So thats why we make it illegal to not wear your seatbelt because it is easy to enforce? Well its easy to enforce a law which prohibits chewing gum, but that doesnt mean we should pass it.

Ease of enforcement must always be taken into account. Taxing the government or the courts is always a bad idea and while the government doesn't give a rats ass sometimes, thankfully once in a while they exclude very small businesses from certain regulations. Swamping the government while not increasing taxes (for more government workers) ain't exactly the best idea.

[Adam Smith]

Dan, HO, Imran, et al:

The passages I quoted are from the Code of Federal Regulations, not the original law. The original law, the Federal Railroad Safety Act, incorporates these standards by reference. The Federal Railroad Safety Act says someting to the effect that "Mechanical standards shall consist of the AAR Interchange Rules dated [x], and amended by the Federal Railroad Administration dated [y]." So if you want to change the standards, you have to change the Act itself.

[DanS]

Hmmm... Go figure. That doesn't seem like the way to do regs.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

They were taking it away for those groups involved in interstate commerce, but they could not justify taking away the freedom of association for those private clubs... and neither can I, frankly.

And by not defining you allow other groups to say they are private thus smearing true private groups from freedom of assosication.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo


Which hasn't come into play in Dean's campaign yet.

So what. It is there for the general election. They still make you do that to become President. Can't just do a primary and get skip over...

[Imran Siddiqui]

And by not defining you allow other groups to say they are private thus smearing true private groups from freedom of assosication.

What are you INSANE?! You want Congress to define every little thing? What is the court system for?

It doesn't matter if a group claims they are private, the courts will decide if they are or not.