Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

White House Tells Boeing they can't have Plant in SC

Page 2 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

23 Apr 2011, 6:35 pm

The NLRB's decision would make it hard for businesses to expand into new markets in new states, thus hampering job growth. If Boeing can get the 787 to catch on, that would being in billions of dollars, most of which has been going to Airbus in France lately. I know that the unions and their communist allies are feeling really butthurt at the moment and are trying to show some vestige of power to intimidate others from dissing them, but once again, their actions are not in the best interest of the nation as a whole.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

23 Apr 2011, 9:03 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Admitting that I've only read the summary and not the article, I have to say that I would be surprised if the president had anything at all to do with the action. This one should shall firmly into the "fully delegated to the commission" category.

If you read the whole article, you'll find the decisions was made by an Obama appointee. Most people who follow the NLRB have been expecting this kind of thing, because Obama has made it a policy to appoint a labor dominated majority to the board, using recess appointments to avoid senate oversight.

Quote:
Articles like this one should be part of the alert process. "Hey, look what your commission is doing! Aren't you going to stop them?" ... I would guess that this action is subject to the political wind and CAN be changed.

Your guess is wrong. The president has little control over the NLRB other than filling vacancies. Feel free to write Obama if you want to, but it would be more effective simply to recognize that this is typical of Obama's policies, and to vote him out and vote in a president who will appoint less partisan NLRB members.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Apr 2011, 11:30 pm

psychohist wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Admitting that I've only read the summary and not the article, I have to say that I would be surprised if the president had anything at all to do with the action. This one should shall firmly into the "fully delegated to the commission" category.

If you read the whole article, you'll find the decisions was made by an Obama appointee. Most people who follow the NLRB have been expecting this kind of thing, because Obama has made it a policy to appoint a labor dominated majority to the board, using recess appointments to avoid senate oversight.

Quote:
Articles like this one should be part of the alert process. "Hey, look what your commission is doing! Aren't you going to stop them?" ... I would guess that this action is subject to the political wind and CAN be changed.

Your guess is wrong. The president has little control over the NLRB other than filling vacancies. Feel free to write Obama if you want to, but it would be more effective simply to recognize that this is typical of Obama's policies, and to vote him out and vote in a president who will appoint less partisan NLRB members.


I was expecting these kind of shannigans, cause I actually knew about Obama's radical friends, and associations with Unions, ACORN, etc.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

23 Apr 2011, 11:40 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
psychohist wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Admitting that I've only read the summary and not the article, I have to say that I would be surprised if the president had anything at all to do with the action. This one should shall firmly into the "fully delegated to the commission" category.

If you read the whole article, you'll find the decisions was made by an Obama appointee. Most people who follow the NLRB have been expecting this kind of thing, because Obama has made it a policy to appoint a labor dominated majority to the board, using recess appointments to avoid senate oversight.

Quote:
Articles like this one should be part of the alert process. "Hey, look what your commission is doing! Aren't you going to stop them?" ... I would guess that this action is subject to the political wind and CAN be changed.

Your guess is wrong. The president has little control over the NLRB other than filling vacancies. Feel free to write Obama if you want to, but it would be more effective simply to recognize that this is typical of Obama's policies, and to vote him out and vote in a president who will appoint less partisan NLRB members.


I was expecting these kind of shannigans, cause I actually knew about Obama's radical friends, and associations with Unions, ACORN, etc.


So you guys say he can't control the decision but blame him for it anyway?

Interesting.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

23 Apr 2011, 11:55 pm

Obama is partly to blame. He picks people who have been vocal in their unpopular radical views to hold appointed positions and implement his most unpopular for him through underground regulation through the bureaucracies. Basically he's kept his approval rate as high as he has by using a network of puppets that double as lightning rods to do his dirty work.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

24 Apr 2011, 1:11 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
So you guys say he can't control the decision but blame him for it anyway?

He has already made the decision by making his appointments. That's what we blame him for.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

24 Apr 2011, 1:32 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
psychohist wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Admitting that I've only read the summary and not the article, I have to say that I would be surprised if the president had anything at all to do with the action. This one should shall firmly into the "fully delegated to the commission" category.

If you read the whole article, you'll find the decisions was made by an Obama appointee. Most people who follow the NLRB have been expecting this kind of thing, because Obama has made it a policy to appoint a labor dominated majority to the board, using recess appointments to avoid senate oversight.

Quote:
Articles like this one should be part of the alert process. "Hey, look what your commission is doing! Aren't you going to stop them?" ... I would guess that this action is subject to the political wind and CAN be changed.

Your guess is wrong. The president has little control over the NLRB other than filling vacancies. Feel free to write Obama if you want to, but it would be more effective simply to recognize that this is typical of Obama's policies, and to vote him out and vote in a president who will appoint less partisan NLRB members.


I was expecting these kind of shannigans, cause I actually knew about Obama's radical friends, and associations with Unions, ACORN, etc.


So you guys say he can't control the decision but blame him for it anyway?

Interesting.


He deliberately put the people in question into these positions of power specifically because they had these viewpoints. So yeah, he is responsible even if he can sit there and argue that he "has no control over this."