[sglv]

Originally Posted by sy2

Everyone chimes in after the first wise crack, but no one actually responds to the issue at all

I give Linsky some credit for at least calling for prosecution if the allegations are true, but what about everyone else that bought into this whole "moral congress" spiel and really thought things might be different under the Dems?

If these claims were to be verified (which seems likely as there hasn't been any sort of denial by the Pelosi camp whatsoever, and this has been out for awhile now), how would Democrats react? Isn't this the sort of conflict of interest that needs to be eradicated - on both sides of the aisle - in order to really make moral decisions for the good of the country and not any particular individual/lobbying group?

Everyone that's railed so hard against the Republicans for every single indiscretion can't really just completely ignore this and still have a leg to stand on when it comes to honest political discourse - what gives?

The press won't investigate it, that's what gives. Nancy Pelosi will not provide proof of her innocence b/c she probably knows the best coarse of action is to just keep her mouth shut. I learned from Gibbons that is the most typical political maneuver out there. Say nothing, do nothing, and it will probably go away (Gibbons gambled wrong on that one - then again he's a republican and the press crucified him for saying nothing). But the press won't cover it unless they have to b/c she is a democrat and when they investigate, they'll poo poo it with some crazy thing like, she just gets the money, she doesn't make the hiring decisions, that's up to someone else.

[sglv]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Why haven't you heard about it though? That's the problem--the allegation's have been made why doesn't the New York Times investigate it? They run story after story after story about Hastert who wasn't guilty of a damn thing and the liberals were all over that like flies to honey, yet here is a story of true hypocricy and they ignore it.

And the best part of all--the guy who posted so many bogus articles about Bush, about Haliburton, about Cheney, etc (bassteman)--much of which I proved was false, and his response is I don't have any proof!

Does it get any more hypocritical than that?

All probably true, but actually, I've been too busy with local politics since May to research or be much concerned with things on a national level except where it involved our locals, like Harry Reid. Now that the elections are over, I have to study up on the 2008 elections and since it is a presidential electiion, I'll need to focus on national elections as much as local politics.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

This is why this is going to be so much fun--exposing you for what you and I both know you are, don't we? You posted every piece of garbage you could find on Bush (you and the rest of the liberals)--you never worried about proof--you were judge, jury, and excutioner and every regular here knows how many times I shoved it down your throat and disproved the garbage you posted.

Now its your turn, dimwitted one--prove me wrong!

Hypocrite!

Oh dear, I've upset you again!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Wino

Wrong. I have no problem with Rebulicans.


Doesn't make much difference whether I care for illegals are not. Pelosi and Bush do. Fact is your boy is so excited he may be able to get his lame brained immigration bill passed now that dems control congress.


My hipocrasy knows no bounds.


Good! I can skip confession this week.

Dems don't control anything until Jan!

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by sglv

The press won't investigate it, that's what gives. Nancy Pelosi will not provide proof of her innocence b/c she probably knows the best coarse of action is to just keep her mouth shut. I learned from Gibbons that is the most typical political maneuver out there. Say nothing, do nothing, and it will probably go away (Gibbons gambled wrong on that one - then again he's a republican and the press crucified him for saying nothing). But the press won't cover it unless they have to b/c she is a democrat and when they investigate, they'll poo poo it with some crazy thing like, she just gets the money, she doesn't make the hiring decisions, that's up to someone else.

It is the duty of the INS to investigate Pelosi. This is a federal agency that is run by a Bush appointee. If they don't investigate her, then one can only conclude that she has done nothing wrong. Again, I call for the immediate investigation of Nancy Pelosi and one can only assume that the investigation has already begun.

[anwthan-a]

And I assume that it is just as I feared.They ARE all in it together.A one party system.

[sglv]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

It is the duty of the INS to investigate Pelosi. This is a federal agency that is run by a Bush appointee. If they don't investigate her, then one can only conclude that she has done nothing wrong. Again, I call for the immediate investigation of Nancy Pelosi and one can only assume that the investigation has already begun.

I agree, but if there is no investigation, how will they even know if she did something or nothing wrong? I hope there is an investigation, but I think it will be unlikely. Immigration policy is probably the only thing that Bush and Pelosi are in bed together on.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

It is the duty of the INS to investigate Pelosi. This is a federal agency that is run by a Bush appointee. If they don't investigate her, then one can only conclude that she has done nothing wrong. Again, I call for the immediate investigation of Nancy Pelosi and one can only assume that the investigation has already begun.

LOL! Its the duty of the INS only as far as the illegals. At this point, it is only speculation that she is employing illegals (a pretty good bet for farm workers), but what about the non-union workers?

It IS THE JOB OF THE PRESS to investigate this stuff--they had no problem running Hastert out on a rail over a few e-mails to a 16 year old, which Hastert had nothing to do with. You and bassetman had no problem crucifying Cheney over his "alleged" conflict of interest with Haliburton (I say alleged because I shoved that down bassetman's throat so many times, he could barely get the beer past it! ). The NY Times had no problem crucifying Cheney over Haliburton.

Why don't you just admit this it total hypocritical BS!!!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Oh dear, I've upset you again!

Don't flatter youself--you can't upset me. What you see expressed from me is righteous indignation and justifiable disgust with the hypocricy of the left. Don't look those words up--just trust me that I'm correct----again!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wino

Wrong. I have no problem with Rebulicans.


Doesn't make much difference whether I care for illegals are not. Pelosi and Bush do. Fact is your boy is so excited he may be able to get his lame brained immigration bill passed now that dems control congress.


My hipocrasy knows no bounds.


Good! I can skip confession this week.

Look Wino, I've got no beef with you-- it wasn't accurate of me to call you a hypocrite, you just happened to get the way when I was on a tirade. You're a Bush hater and your politically confused as hell, but at least you've always seemed fairly consistent in your disgust of politicians in general and your hatred of GWB. And the irony is I've never been a GWB fan from day 1 despite what the impression people have here--my problem has been always been with the gross mischaracterizations, exaggerations, speculation and outright lies. But this time I can toss facts to the wind and simply post any and everything I can find and watch the same people who did it to GWB and the Repubs scamble to defend their heros.

You and I both know the score when it comes to politics--so just stay out of my way whlie I roast myself some liberals!

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

What you see expressed from me is righteous indignation and justifiable disgust with the hypocricy of the left. Don't look those words up--just trust me that I'm correct----again!

actually what i see, mulder, is you becoming the person you most despise....a moore-on

from a brief tour of google, using a search for non-union wineries, you are in good company

yeah, pelosi is one wealthy woman, and owns a whole bunch of stuff....and maybe there is some hypocrisy in the way she does business....i dunno....you certainly don't either....and the fools you quote have just picked up a story and personalized it for their audience.....

if the ins got involved in the wine industry, they'd have to shut it down.....

you know, of course, that almost all growers contract out their seasonal labor to a third party who picks up the worker's comp

The practice offers even less job security for farmworkers in an always-precarious, seasonal industry. The state licenses contractors, but officials agree the system makes it much harder to enforce labor laws, such as minimum wage, mandatory overtime and breaks. By the time complaints are filed or investigated, the workers are likely to be on a different farm or not working at all.

The 30-year-old Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which governs union elections and protects union activity in the fields, makes contract employees part of the bargaining unit. That means they vote on whether to be represented by a union and are covered by contracts.

But because contractors can rotate workers frequently, union organizing is more difficult. UFW officials charge that Gallo is deliberately increasing the number of contract workers to force the union out, an assertion Gallo denies.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/OFGU/wine061605.cfm

you know, of course, the suddenly right-on (from you the union buster) ufw union has a two tiered contract, the second tier being the seasonal workers, who pay their dues, but receive none of the benefits (health care, etc)?....they do recieve the negotiated wage however.

you know, of course, that the ufw has, as a high percentage of its members, undocumented workers? (hardly a union i'd think you'd care about one bit, if not for pelosi being on your side of the arguement.)

the wine industry is growing at an astounding clip....lots of fashionable money is buying into it, and both oregon and washington are seeing growth

and even british columbia....perhaps as further evidence that pelosi the businesswoman is one sharp capitalistic pig, here's tidbit from http://www.bdo.ca/library/publicatio...es/022005a.cfm

Its success is also a tribute to a new breed of Canadian entrepreneur. The wine industry remains dominated by small to medium-size companies, each with an average of less than 50 employees. The small force of highly motivated, non-union workers lets wineries embrace change as needed and keep ahead of the market.

sounds to me like basically, she heavily involved in an industry with shrinking union presence and a broad pay scale at the low end....from 19 to 47 thou, according to http://www.winebusiness.com/Referenc...m?dataId=45483

so maybe until you find out how she TREATS her employees, you outta just keep your drool in a jar or something

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

actually what i see, mulder, is you becoming the person you most despise....a moore-on

from a brief tour of google, using a search for non-union wineries, you are in good company

yeah, pelosi is one wealthy woman, and owns a whole bunch of stuff....and maybe there is some hypocrisy in the way she does business....i dunno....you certainly don't either....and the fools you quote have just picked up a story and personalized it for their audience.....

if the ins got involved in the wine industry, they'd have to shut it down.....

you know, of course, that almost all growers contract out their seasonal labor to a third party who picks up the worker's comp

http://www.organicconsumers.org/OFGU/wine061605.cfm

you know, of course, the suddenly right-on (from you the union buster) ufw union has a two tiered contract, the second tier being the seasonal workers, who pay their dues, but receive none of the benefits (health care, etc)?....they do recieve the negotiated wage however.

you know, of course, that the ufw has, as a high percentage of its members, undocumented workers? (hardly a union i'd think you'd care about one bit, if not for pelosi being on your side of the arguement.)

the wine industry is growing at an astounding clip....lots of fashionable money is buying into it, and both oregon and washington are seeing growth

and even british columbia....perhaps as further evidence that pelosi the businesswoman is one sharp capitalistic pig, here's tidbit from http://www.bdo.ca/library/publicatio...es/022005a.cfm


sounds to me like basically, she heavily involved in an industry with shrinking union presence and a broad pay scale at the low end....from 19 to 47 thou, according to http://www.winebusiness.com/Referenc...m?dataId=45483

so maybe until you find out how she TREATS her employees, you outta just keep your drool in a jar or something

Its not only the wineries--she also owns a hotel and a string of resturants and thats all non-union as I understand it and she sells to non-union distributors and businesses. And there's plenty of other jobs in the wineries besides the migrant workers.

Point is she has to be better than the rest--if she is going to be pro-union, then she ought to hire union employees in all her businesses or keep her big mouth shut--she criticized many other businesses for trying to shut out union employees.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

yeah, pelosi is one wealthy woman, and owns a whole bunch of stuff....and maybe there is some hypocrisy in the way she does business....i dunno....you certainly don't either....and the fools you quote have just picked up a story and personalized it for their audience.....

LOL! when the NY Times does this crap, its called investigative reporting! Honestly--give it up, you are just making it look worse. You know damn well this is exactly wha the liberal press did to Bush--they personalized and slanted everything they could to make him look bad and you know it.

What's good for the goose it good for the gander. I honestly wish it wasn't like this--I wish the press would simply report news without slanting it, but to be fair, if they are going to do it, then it has to be done uniformly my leftist friend.

I will remind you the way the Associated Press tried to claim that Bush knew the levies would break in New Orleans--that was far far far more slanted and personalized for the audience than is this story.

[GoneForNow]

ilots....if you read the sites you quote they don't exactly stand for the proposition you're attempting to assert. For example, the wages quoted have nothing to do with seasonal workers.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

ilots....if you read the sites you quote they don't exactly stand for the proposition you're attempting to assert. For example, the wages quoted have nothing to do with seasonal workers.

And its not even seasonal workers--its ALL the workers and all the businesses she does business with. She could easily make a statement--she could sell to only union distributors or businesses that were union friendly--she'd take it in the shorts and lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, but she could do it.

I'm going to see what I can find out about her charitable donations!