Obama and Jobs (not Steve)

[MeGusta]

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

Reference them.

Lurker has not had a past reference or a past citation for every issue that has come up on this board. It is not even arguable that he routinely makes assertions for which he provides no evidence. While some of those assertions are accurate, some are not, which makes the debate dishonest.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Reference them.

No. It's not my responsibility to do your homework for you, nor am I interested in digging around for the citations you seek. I'll give you a starting point though - check the "Debt Deal" thread. I'm relatively certain Lurker (Or someone else, perhaps) linked the relevant issues (Being the Republican party's sabotaging of the recovery and the fact that we discussed it as it was happening).

Lurker has not had a past reference or a past citation for every issue that has come up on this board.

I didn't say he had a reference for every issue, I said he has had a reference for nearly every time this issue has come up (The issue of the Republican party's sabotaging the recovery). I said that, as far as I've seen, every time this issue has come up he's provided reference to the historical facts and the discussion that took place as those events were unfolding.

You're arguing with me against something I am not nor have I ever said. You're subtly attempting to change my argument, and then arguing against what you claim I'm saying. I'm sure you know as well as I do what kind of fallacy that is, which means I can only conclude that you're trolling, and we're done here.

[MeGusta]

No. It's not my responsibility to do your homework for you, nor am I interested in digging around for the citations you seek.

Then I will have to assume you are being dishonest. I am sure you can find cases of Lurker giving a citation or reference. I am saying he also makes a habit of making declarations with no evidence of support and expects them to be taken at face value. If you refuse to back up your own statements then I can only conclude you are trolling, and we're done here.

[Lurker]

I have lurked here longer than Lurker has posted, I would guess.

Heh. Are we really supposed to believe that you've been lurking here for longer than I've been posting, since 2002, but are completely unaware that I used to provide extensive linking, sometimes even entire transcripts obtained from Lexis Nexus, to support my arguments?

I used to, that is, until I realized it was a wasted effort because the Teapublicans on this board aren't the least bit interested in honest debate. Hell, if they were interested in honest debate they wouldn't be Teapublicans in the first place.

On the issue of Republican sabotage that Embar refuses to acknowlege, preferring instead to attack Obama for things Republicans blocked, this "discussion" has been going on for years. Yeah, there's some links there but nothing to meet your standards. Of course, you've just been lurking for nine years so you have a lot more energy than the rest of us.

[MeGusta]

Heh. Are we really supposed to believe that you've been lurking here for longer than I've been posting, since 2002, but are completely unaware that I used to provide extensive linking, sometimes even entire transcripts obtained from Lexis Nexus, to support my arguments?

I am quite aware. As I am aware at how jealous Beek was of your Lexis Nexus sub.

I am willing to concede that you have been, in the past, a shining beacon of proper citation. My grievance is much more recent. I am also willing to concede the possibility that your laziness has been brought on by an immovable object in the person of Embar. It does not prevent me from lamenting the change, however.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Then I will have to assume you are being dishonest.

You claim here that I'm lying because I refuse to spoon-feed the proper links to you, yet in your very next post acknowledge full understanding of Lurker's prior referencing on subjects far and wide - not just those currently in question.

Please explain the contradiction.

[MeGusta]

You are like a mastiff with a ham bone, sir.

Please read again what I said to Lurker and if that does not satisfy then I am unwilling to continue to attempt to do so.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Suspicions confirmed: MeGusta is a troll.

[MeGusta]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Suspicions confirmed: MeGusta is a troll.

No more a Troll than you, Harlowe, Lurker, Embar, or myself.

[Embar Angylwrath]

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.

You clearly don't comprehend the litigation.

The complaint filed April 20 against Boeing by the NLRB's Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon didn't seek to shut the South Carolina factory. It called for increasing production at the planemaker's commercial hub in Washington state to an equivalent level as planned for South Carolina.

That's essentially a job-for-job requirement. What... Boeing is supposed to magically create demand for its planes?

And as to what Obama can and can't do. He can fire anyone he appointed. Whether or not he chooses to do so is a different matter.

And I find this portion of the report particulrly galling:

Wolfgang Demisch, an aerospace financial consultant in New York, questioned Boeing's fight with the Machinists union when the planemaker is gearing up for a new variant of the narrow- body 737, its top-selling model. He drew a contrast between Boeing and Airbus SAS, a unit of Paris- and Munich-based European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and the world's largest commercial planemaker after outselling its U.S. rival since 2003. Boeing and the union "need to come together in order to survive," Demisch said. "If Airbus can build planes reasonably effectively in Germany, where by law there's labor representation on the board, then it can't be totally impossible.

The report fails to tell the reader that Airbus is heavily subsidized by billions of dollars of low-cost government (European) loans. And to connect the dots for you... if Airbus is supported by semi-socialist governments, of course there's going to be labor representation on the managing boards and councils.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Think what you like. You've simply proven that you're either:

A) Nowhere near as familiar with the activities on this board as you claim, or

B) Intentionally contradicting yourself.

We've all mentioned that Lurker has presented citation for the issue in question. In direct response to me you broadened the scope of the argument, insisting that we were talking about more than the specific issue being discussed here.

I corrected you, you ignored the correction. You insisted that I present links to the specific issues that we're discussing. I refused, because clearly, if you've been lurking as much and for as long as you claim, you're familiar with the threads in question. I even told you which thread to look in for starters, but apparently that wasn't good enough.

Given the above facts and series of events, it's clear you aren't interested in an honest discussion any more than Embar is. Therefore, troll. If you don't believe you fit the definition, you're free to alter your behavior so you don't appear to be trolling. You could start by skimming the "Debt Deal" thread for the relevant links.

Or better yet, you could try politely asking someone to provide them, as you've obviously missed them. But when you come in guns blazing and insisting that the proper citations have never been presented at all, especially when everyone else actually knows better, you kind of kill any incentive to work with you that other users might have.

Fall,

I challenge you to show us where I have behaved in any manner other than the interest of honest discussion of an issue. I have, in my life on this board, "trolled" a user exactly once, and I wasn't very good at it, imo. However, in this section, on these topics, I am genuinely interested in the discussion of the issues at hand.

Unfortunately, in replying to you I am simply "feeding the troll," so whatev.

[Harlowe]

A) Nowhere near as familiar with the activities on this board as you claim, or

B) Intentionally contradicting yourself.

I've never seen you troll the political section and you are spot on, though I'd also add "C) Lazy" as an option.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Yeah, I trolled Select last year because she was just getting so damned annoying. My trolling skillz aren't all that great, in that I think everyone thought I was being serious about it all, but I did manage to get under her skin.

Trolling politics though? Nah. I'm not talented enough for that.

[MeGusta]

You clearly don't comprehend the litigation.

Really? Apparently everyone but you and the "Tea Party" agrees that the NLRB is accusing Boeing of illegal retaliation.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business ... 06-17.html

STEVEN GREENHOUSE, The New York Times: Nice to be here, Margaret.

So, the National Labor Relations Board is asserting that Boeing, in deciding to open this plant in South Carolina, is illegally retaliating against workers in Seattle because they had exercised what the Labor Board says was their legal, their federally protected right to strike.

And the union up in Seattle has gone on strike five times since 1977, including a 58-day strike in 2008, which Boeing says cost the company $1.8 billion in losses. So, when Boeing announced two years ago that it wanted to open up a new factory in South Carolina, some Boeing executives said, we're tired of all these disruptions. That's a major reason we're leaving.

And the Labor Board said you can't punish the workers in that way. That's illegal. You're retaliating against them for exercising their right to strike.

Care to revise your assertion?

Airbus is subsidized? Duh. Were you aware at how heavily Boeing is federally subsidized? Would you like me to Google that for you?

[Ddrak]

The report fails to tell the reader that Airbus is heavily subsidized by billions of dollars of low-cost government (European) loans.

You do realize that Boeing is the only company of the two to have been found guilty of being illegally subsidized, right? The reason being that while Airbus gets billions of dollars of low-interest LOANS, Boeing got billions of dollars of GRANTS. The difference (in case it isn't obvious) is Airbus has to pay their money back.

Your "socialist" jab is just silly - the word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

@ MeGusta -

You made a statement that the NLRB wasn't trying to force Boeing to have one union job for every non-union one in the new plant. I showed you otherwiose. Then, in an incredibly Rsakian response, you link some nor piece that addresses WHY (from labor's standpoint), the NLRB is suing, not WHAT they are suing for.

So much for the vaunted intelligence. That move alone makes me think you're Rsak, not Jecks. Only Rsak would pull some move like that.

[MeGusta]

Oh! Now it is someone else you wish me to be in order to discount my arguments. Please publish a list of the people you think I am with the days of the week you are going to claim that I am which person so we can all keep this straight.

I am not Jecks. I am not Rsak.

This is growing tiresome.

I showed you otherwiose.

No. You didn't. Increasing production is not a 1 for 1 call for job replacement. It merely attempts to re-level the playing field and eliminate the unfair retaliation that Boeing is engaged in. The NLRB in no way seeks to force Boeing to hire or fire any employees. They only wish to insure that Boeing is not retaliating against the workers who went on a legal strike. The words of Boeing's own execs acknowledge that increasing production in South Carolina is a retaliation against the union workers in Washington.

So much for the vaunted intelligence.

If you want to comment on intelligence you should probably at least use spell check in your own arguments.

Lurker, I begin to sympathize. I am close to retracting my grievance.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Tell me brainiac... how do you sue some company to increase production?

[MeGusta]

Tell me brainiac... how do you sue some company to increase production?

Are you really this dense?

I did not say they were suing to increase production. I said increased production is not a 1 for 1 job replacement.

Production would by necessity increase at the Washington facility if the plane was manufactured there as opposed to South Carolina. The production was moved to South Carolina in retaliation for a lawful strike by the union workers in Washington according to the complaint.

From the complaint:

This is why they filed:

(a) In or about October 2009, on a date better known to Respondent, but no later than October 28, 2009, Respondent decided to transfer its second 787 Dreamliner production line of 3 planes per month from the Unit to its non-union site in North Charleston, South Carolina.

(b) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 7(a) because the Unit employees assisted and/or supported the Union by, inter alia, engaging in the protected, concerted activity of lawful strikes and to discourage these and/or other employees from engaging in these or other union and/or protected, concerted activities.

(c) Respondent's conduct described above in paragraph 7(a), combined with the conduct described above in Paragraph 6, is also inherently destructive of the rights guaranteed employees by § 7 of the Act.

This is the suggested remedy:

(a) As part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs 7 and 8, the Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to have the Unit operate its second line of 787 Dreamliner aircraft assembly production in the State of Washington, utilizing supply lines maintained by the Unit in the Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, area facilities.

(b) Other than as set forth in paragraph 13(a) above, the relief requested by the Acting General Counsel does not seek to prohibit Respondent from making non-discriminatory decisions with respect to where work will be performed, including non-discriminatory decisions with respect to work at its North Charleston, South Carolina, facility.

http://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files ... ot_hrg.pdf

There is no argument here. The courts will decide this issue and that is how it is supposed to work. Your original claim is to lay this at the feet of the President and that is just stupid. So now you come to pick some nit and you fail at that as well. If you are a masochist you can pay to have a dom stuff her panties in your mouth and spank you with a hairbrush. You don't need to come here for that kind of abuse.