Obama and Jobs (not Steve)

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Successful troll thread is successful.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Embar,

Pretty lame attempt to downplay and deflect what's actually happening.

The Republican's made a decision early on to sabotage the recovery because it would be to their political advantage and they blocked Obama's legislation (like the small business loan legislation that you yourself said was critical to job creation). That's hardly me saying "boo hoo Obama inherited this mess" (which he did), or that the Republican's simply aren't "nice". They are hurting millions of Americans because it might benefit their party politically.

That's the facts.

So stop posting your ignorant Drudge induced crap as if we've forgotten how we got where we are or what your political party is doing. Talk about getting old...

I think whats getting old around here is you claiming you know what the facts are.

[Lurker]

Thank you for the ad hom. Now... want to answer the questions or just keep making personal attacks?

It's not an ad hom. Acknowledge basic facts or shut the hell up. Everyone knows you won't respond because all your attack threads rely on ignoring them. It's sort of hard to admit that Republicans sabotaged the recovery by blocking Obama legislation even you supported and attack Obama for not having legislation to address the problem.

[MeGusta]

Wow Harlowe and Lurker, Just wow.

The only way to have a political discussion that does not sound like an echo chamber is for one viewpoint to be laid out and a rebuttal given. You two do not really give rebuttals at all. You immediately attack. You post accusations with no citation nor evidence of fact. The sense of entitlement from you two is incredible. That is a shame, since I would probably be on your side of the rebuttal most of the time.

[Lurker]

MeGusta,

You really haven't been around long enough to realize (or you really are Jecks or you're just too naive to understand), but Embar isn't interested in laying out a viewpoint and discussing it. He's, as Jaro put it, devolved to Troll status. He's a puke funnel for Drudge links. He's someone who actually attacked Obama during the 2008 election because Obama said a few words about his Grandmother who had just died.

Further, if Embar isn't honest enough to acknowledge reality then there's no point discussing anything with him.

Obama proposes legislation that Embar thinks is critical to job creation, Republicans block the legislation because sabotaging the recovery will benefit them politically, and instead of admitting what actually happened Embar rushes to the board to parrot the latest attack against Obama.

That's dishonest to the core. That's the echo chamber that Embar lives in.

If you think this thread was about the NLRB decision or was an honest attempt to discuss an issue, you're wrong. The title and focus prove that. Embars refusal to acknowledge reality, EVER, proves that. He'll just move from this attack to the next when the next talking point comes out. It's what he's always done.

So please spare us. Spare everyone.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

He's someone who actually attacked Obama during the 2008 election because Obama said a few words about his Grandmother who had just died.

There's a difference between saying a few words about your Grandmother that just died and using her as a prop in a campaign, he really should've just kept her corpse around so he could roll her out whenever he talked about her.

[MeGusta]

You really haven't been around long enough to realize

How very predictable. Maybe it is an advantage in this particular discussion to be the more objective newcomer rather than hardened in my perceptions? I think so.

or you really are Jecks

Is this a counter I can expect every time I post? We have established that I am not Jecks nor am I any other person other than MeGusta. Ddrak has stated as much and I assume he has used the tools at his disposal to make that determination. Continued use of this deflection to diminish or undercut my points only serve to harm your own arguments.

Further, if Embar isn't honest enough to acknowledge reality then there's no point discussing anything with him.

Yet you continue to respond to him in predictable masochistic fashion. Curious. Not that you are actually attempting discussion. You provide no evidence in your mediocre refutations. You simply demand that he accepts facts that you do not provide citations for.

If your claims about Embar are true, and yet you continue to engage him, then you are a fool. I did not take you for a fool. I can occasionally be wrong.

[Lurker]

MeGusta,
Forgive me if I don't provide citations and evidence every single time I make a statement. These are items we've covered in other threads and Embar refuses to respond because it would destroy the premise of every single attack post he makes. We've been posting on these boards for over eight years and there used to be some good discussions here. Now we all just play out the same pattern. Embar's pattern is to move from attack to attack. He's not interested in honest debate. Occasionally I give him the opportunity to prove me wrong and to answer a question honestly. He never fails to dissapoint.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

You provide no evidence in your mediocre refutations. You simply demand that he accepts facts that you do not provide citations for.

This would be the first time I've seen Lurker present this particular claim without evidence. Every other time Embar goes on his "ZOMG OBAMA'S BREAKING EVERYTHING!!!" rant, Lurker responds similarly to the way he has here, with direct links to the relevant threads and facts of the issues in question.

And yes, Embar refuses to acknowledge the reality of the situation every single time it's presented, just as he has here.

On topic:

From the article:

Schaumber and Ron Meisburg, a former NLRB general counsel who also served under Bush, said there is little Obama can do to stop the board from pursuing a case that could hurt him politically.

"I never got a call from the president in my four-and-a- half years in that job, and I would hope that that's still the case," Meisburg said in an interview.

Removing Solomon from his post for pursuing an unpopular course of action would seem to me like an abuse of power, should the President choose to pursue that course of action. It also seems as though Solomon is pursuing the case in good faith, under the belief that the new plant's location is being determined as a direct result of "punishment" against the Union employees.

If anything, this is a failing of the absence of consistent labor standards across the US, and a failing of labor entities and management to come to an equitable resolution.

[Harlowe]

MeGusta has flair for the dramatic.

[Ddrak]

Hey - why assume Embar is taking the GOP side? He could always be shilling for the AFL-CIO.

Dd

[MeGusta]

MeGusta has flair for the dramatic.

How so very relevant to our discussion, Harlowe. You must be proud to deliver such a contribution.

Or maybe I am too new here and your role is simply to take up space on each page?

[Lurker]

How so very relevant to our discussion, Harlowe. You must be proud to deliver such a contribution.

Or maybe I am too new here and your role is simply to take up space on each page?

What discussion?

So far your only contribution to this thread has been to attack me and Harlowe. You must be so proud. You're close to being written off as a troll.

Is there a reason you didn't engage Embar in debate, choosing instead to reprimand us?

Go on... flex that highly educated brain of yours and set a great example for us. Discuss the issue with Embar in depth, because an honest debate is clearly what's he's after.

[Embar Angylwrath]

How so very relevant to our discussion, Harlowe. You must be proud to deliver such a contribution.

Or maybe I am too new here and your role is simply to take up space on each page?

What discussion?

So far your only contribution to this thread has been to attack me and Harlowe. You must be so proud. You're close to being written off as a troll.

Is there a reason you didn't engage Embar in debate, choosing instead to reprimand us?

Go on... flex that highly educated brain of yours and set a great example for us. Discuss the issue with Embar in depth, because an honest debate is clearly what's he's after.

Lurker finally got something right.

MeGusta - why do you need Lurker and Harlowe to post first in order for you to weigh in? Put on your big boy pants and make your case. You can start by answering my two questions from earlier on in the thread, the ones that Lurker and Harlowe seem so intimidated by.

[MeGusta]

What discussion?

I would have thought that was self evident. No? Ok then. The discussion I am referring to is the one about the style of debate or lack thereof between you, Embar, and Harlowe.

You must be so proud. You're close to being written off as a troll.

On a board full of trolls, does that mean acceptance then?

Is there a reason you didn't engage Embar in debate, choosing instead to reprimand us?

Yes. I find the original topic puerile and uninteresting. The interplay between you three is a much more interesting issue.

Embar demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the situation when he attacks the President over this issue. The NLRB is an independent agency. As such, President Obama does not control the positions they take other than to appoint the members of the board.

Further, as there is an active lawsuit regarding this issue, it would be idiotic on its face for President Obama to interfere in any way which would include any actions to remove the General Counsel of the NLRB. It is not even clear that he could do so since the NLRB is an Administrative Agency and not an Executive Agency. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States, (1935), the Supreme Court decided that the President Roosevelt could not remove the commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. The statute that created the commission permitted removal of the commissioner only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance of office. Roosevelt purported to remove FTC Commissioner William E. Humphrey, who had been nominated by President herbert c. hoover to a seven-year term in 1931, in order to replace Humphrey with an individual of Roosevelt's own selection. The Court held that because Humphrey was not an executive officer, the President could not remove him from office except for the causes set forth in the statute. The General Counsel is also not an executive Officer and there is no indication that he has violated any rule of his office.

citation: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... ive+Agency

To answer Embar's questions before he asks them of me:

Do you think the NLRB should be doing what they're doing?

1. It is their job to litigate unfair labor practices. It would appear that they filed this lawsuit in order to combat what they view as unfair labor practices. The court will decide if they are correct. I think the phrase here is "working as intended".

Do you think the policy of the NLRB should be to force a company to have one union job for every non-union job in another state?

2. Your question is dishonest. That is not their stated or written policy and they are doing no such thing. They are litigating a perceived retaliation by Boeing against the Boeing workers for the workers strike that delayed production.

[Lurker]

Ha!!! You are quite a piece of work.

You didn't debate Embar because you find the topic "puerile and uninteresting" but you chastise us for not doing so. Then when you do respond, you make the same point I made in the first line of my first post.

Yeah, you put a lot more effort into your response, but you'll find that Embar isn't worth the effort. He's not honest.

If you don't like our "style of debate", it's because we've been posting here so long we usually just cut to the inevitable end. You're more than welcome to give it a go. Maybe some of us will join in.

Meanwhile, Embar is breathing a sigh of relief that someone provided enough destraction that he could (again!) avoid acknowledging reality.

[MeGusta]

You didn't debate Embar because you find the topic "puerile and uninteresting" but you chastise us for not doing so.

The chastisement was not for a failure to debate Embar. It was for attacking him instead of his arguments. Harlowe more so than you. You initially responded to him so I assume you had some interest in the topic. Your basic failure is to make assertions without citation. If you have previously made such a citation in another thread, then for the sake of honesty in argument you could at the very least reference that prior post.

Meanwhile, Embar is breathing a sigh of relief that someone provided enough destraction that he could (again!) avoid acknowledging reality.

I do not believe that my response to him lends itself to rebuttal. I will be amused to see what he can come up with, if anything.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

If you have previously made such a citation in another thread, then for the sake of honesty in argument you could at the very least reference that prior post.

You are literally the only person posting on these forums who may be ignorant of the history here, and the discussions that have taken place ad naseum in the last couple years. When citations have been presented - multiple times - in previous discussions, why would you reasonably expect him to post the relevant links yet again exclusively to appease you should you decide to read the thread?

I seem to recall mentioning before that this is the first instance I've seen where the relevant threads weren't linked directly, and that we've all seen it numerous times before. Since Lurker does make a habit of providing links, and we've said as much, why must you continue insisting that he doesn't? It seems more like you're interested in attacking him about the subject than you are in seeing references.

[MeGusta]

You are literally the only person posting on these forums who may be ignorant of the history here, and the discussions that have taken place ad naseum in the last couple years. When citations have been presented - multiple times - in previous discussions, why would you reasonably expect him to post the relevant links yet again exclusively to appease you should you decide to read the thread?

I seem to recall mentioning before that this is the first instance I've seen where the relevant threads weren't linked directly, and that we've all seen it numerous times before. Since Lurker does make a habit of providing links, and we've said as much, why must you continue insisting that he doesn't? It seems more like you're interested in attacking him about the subject than you are in seeing references.

I have stated before that I have lurked on this board for quite some time. Since before it moved from ezboard in fact. I have lurked here longer than Lurker has posted, I would guess. Lurker makes a habit of assertions without reference or citation. I simply called him out on it. I wonder if he will be as quick to chastise you for continuing the distraction as he was me?

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I have lurked here longer than Lurker has posted, I would guess. Lurker makes a habit of assertions without reference or citation.

Then why are you so unfamiliar with the citations and the threads the rest of us know about?