As a friend of the working man, Bugles, you should be well-pleased now that the Democrats have finally extended collective bargaining rights to the airport screeners and other employees of the Transportation Security Administration. Strange how the pro-labor Republicans fought against this for so many years … .
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
As a friend of the working man, Bugles, you should be well-pleased now that the Democrats have finally extended collective bargaining rights to the airport screeners and other employees of the Transportation Security Administration. Strange how the pro-labor Republicans fought against this for so many years … .
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure the Tuna workers are pleased…WTF???
Nancy’s a prawn of Halibuton?
[QUOTE=Bugles]
I’m complaining because the minimum wage law passed by the new HONEST DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS WORKERS FOR A COMPANY BASED IN NANCY PELOSI’s HOME DISTRICT.
[/QUOTE]
As did the previous minimum wage bill passed by the Republican Congress back in 1997. An astounding demonstration of the power of Nancy Pelosi that she was able to pull that one off.
There’s one in every crowd…
[QUOTE=Squink]
Nancy’s a prawn of Halibuton?
[/QUOTE]
We’re all just going to try to tuna out such nonsense from you.
[QUOTE=Bugles]
I’m sure the Tuna workers are pleased…WTF???
[/QUOTE]
Well since you’re so very, very concerned about the well-being of workers in American Samoa I thought you might want to join with us progressives in celebrating another little labor victory.
I guessed wrong. You really only care about bashing Nancy.
Things are starting to look good. They might finally start doing what the were elected to do.
— Posted on Fri, Jan. 12, 2007
STRATEGY IN IRAQ
Democrats might try to cut off war funds
WASHINGTON - Top congressional Democrats conceded Thursday that they probably can’t block the 21,500-member troop increase that President Bush has ordered for Iraq, but said support is growing for using their power over spending to constrain his future war moves.
One day after Bush’s evening address to the nation on his latest war plan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., predicted "the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq.’’
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
As did the previous minimum wage bill passed by the Republican Congress back in 1997. An astounding demonstration of the power of Nancy Pelosi that she was able to pull that one off.
[/QUOTE]
You need to read articles posted and linked here if you want to be taken seriously. Thanks for playing.
Am I the only person who find it hard to seriously read Bugles’ posts, given he uses rhetoric like “Nancy Pelosi and her conspirators”? 
Apparently, “checks and balances” is just a euphemism for “attempting to undermine the government”…
[QUOTE=Bugles]
You need to read articles posted and linked here if you want to be taken seriously. Thanks for playing.
[/QUOTE]
What seems to be escaping you is that the exemption of American Samoa from the national minimum wage law is very old. The American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956 was signed into law by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Maybe it’s time to revisit this law and change it, but it’s disingenous to pretend that this is some sort of shady deal by Nancy Pelosi.
Why didn’t the Republican House try to change the law back in 1997 when they voted on the last minimum wage increase?
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
In principle I believe that every person in the United States should be paid a reasonable minimum wage. However, I will acknowledge that in practice differing economic circumstance may require remote territories to have a different minimum wage than the 50 states do. I don’t know enough about the economic situation in American Samoa to know what a fair minimum wage there should be and whether or not it should be included under the umbrella of the national minimum wage.
[/QUOTE]
That’s like saying IN PRINCIPLE, I believe that every American should be free. However, I will acknowledge that IN PRACTICE differing economic circumstances may require some Americans to be slaves. How does that soubd?
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
What seems to be escaping you is that the exemption of American Samoa from the national minimum wage law is very old. The American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956 was signed into law by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Maybe it’s time to revisit this law and change it, but it’s disingenous to pretend that this is some sort of shady deal by Nancy Pelosi.
Why didn’t the Republican House try to change the law back in 1997 when they voted on the last minimum wage increase?
[/QUOTE]
Why was American Samoa singled out for exemption under Nancy’s Rule? She gad the power to right the wrong…
sound, even
had, even
[QUOTE=rjung]
Am I the only person who find it hard to seriously read Bugles’ posts, given he uses rhetoric like “Nancy Pelosi and her conspirators”? 
Apparently, “checks and balances” is just a euphemism for “attempting to undermine the government”…
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps if I used the PC but grammatically incorrect “co-conspirators” my posts would be easier to read. Is that better?
It looks to me like the only Democrat who ran on principle and truth was the one the Democrats shit upon and had to run as an Independent to beat the Dems “Golden Boy”. I wonder whay Lieberman means in German…
what, even
[QUOTE=Bugles]
It looks to me like the only Democrat who ran on principle and truth was the one the Democrats shit upon and had to run as an Independent to beat the Dems “Golden Boy”. I wonder whay Lieberman means in German…
[/QUOTE]
You mean the Lieberman who campaigned by downplaying and running away from his pro-war stance? Or maybe the Lieberman who played up the need to have documentation about the administration’s handling of Katrina and then, when he was safely elected, decided that the committee he was chair of, the Committee on Homeland Security, shouldn’t try to subpeona that information after all.
Or maybe it was the Lieberman who started his own party in order to run when his own party members decided he’d spent too much time with his nose up Bush’s ass, and then never bothered to become a member of that party and continues to claim Democratic credentials, especially when doing so can get him mentioned in one of his idol’s speeches as an example of bipartisanship (never mind that neither of the two parties mentioned in that context is the Democratic party).
That Lieberman?
[QUOTE=jayjay]
You mean the Lieberman who campaigned by downplaying and running away from his pro-war stance? Or maybe the Lieberman who played up the need to have documentation about the administration’s handling of Katrina and then, when he was safely elected, decided that the committee he was chair of, the Committee on Homeland Security, shouldn’t try to subpeona that information after all.
Or maybe it was the Lieberman who started his own party in order to run when his own party members decided he’d spent too much time with his nose up Bush’s ass, and then never bothered to become a member of that party and continues to claim Democratic credentials, especially when doing so can get him mentioned in one of his idol’s speeches as an example of bipartisanship (never mind that neither of the two parties mentioned in that context is the Democratic party).
That Lieberman?
[/QUOTE]
Screamin’ Deanie could not have maligned him better. You are a credit to your delusion.