Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
President Obama Praises 787  
User currently offlinerjm777ual From UK - England, joined Nov 2011, 246 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11306 times:

On boeing.com, president Obama toured the UA 787, and had good things to say about it, along with the employees.

http://www.boeing.com/Features/2012/02/bca_potus_vid.html


Greetings from Dulles!
55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2900 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Of all of President Obama's comments I found the one..."and it looks cool" as my favorite. I believe Obama was referred to as "President in Geek" early in his tenure after quoting Star Trek and seeing Leonard Nimoy in a crowd and flashing him the Vulcan salute to be totally in line with Obama's "geekness" as he noted it's next gen look and to mention how cool it does indeed look.


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10639 times:

I saw this live on CNN yesterday morning. Pleasant surprise.


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6496 times:

Would have been cool if he visited the Boeing 787 plant in South Carolina

User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6250 times:

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 5):
Would have been cool if he visited the Boeing 787 plant in South Carolina

I doubt he would EVER step foot in that plant.



"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6477 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5528 times:

Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 4):
I doubt he would EVER step foot in that plant.




OK I'll bite, why won't he set foot in the South Carolina plant


User currently offlineaerlingusa330 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5399 times:

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 3):
Would have been cool if he visited the Boeing 787 plant in South Carolina

Yes, I agree. However, he would never go there, despite the fact that it brought thousands of jobs to the Charleston area. Instead, throw a few grand more in fuel for AF1 and go out to Seattle, where there are unions.

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 5):

He'd never go there because it's a Right-to-Work state. He'd be criticized by his union supporters if he were to ever do that. Shows were the guy's motives are pretty clearly.



Shamrock 136 heavy cleared for takeoff runway niner.
User currently offlineVZLA787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5399 times:

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 5):
OK I'll bite, why won't he set foot in the South Carolina plant

Because the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is trying to close Boeing's factory in South Carolina due to the use of non-union labor. Remember, organized labor is one of the main contributors of Obama's campaign.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9652 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4080 times:

Quoting VZLA787 (Reply 8):
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 5):
OK I'll bite, why won't he set foot in the South Carolina plant

Because the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is trying to close Boeing's factory in South Carolina due to the use of non-union labor. Remember, organized labor is one of the main contributors of Obama's campaign.

That issue was taken care of when Boeing promised to build the MAX in Renton and the IAM union accepted a contract extension. Boeing still has their engineering union needing a new contract next year, but compared to the IAM, they are easy.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 6):
Methinks everything this man says is for political expediency only.

Well Boeing has a very high profit margin for a manufacturing company in the US, high revenue growth, and is by far the largest US exporter. When you take it out of A vs B context, Boeing is a company that Obama and Americans should be proud about. It along with agriculture and the semiconductor industry help protect the trade deficit from being even worse. Boeing one of the companies that bring hard currency into the United States instead of out of it should be something that the president supports.

The 787 has its problems, but so do every plane. I think the cheesy compliments of the airplane were there for the person more interested in politics than airplanes. He was really praising the company's ability to work with labor in the United States and earn a profit doing it.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 709 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 6):
Methinks everything this man says is for political expediency only.

...like every other politician in the world...


That said, he was hardly going to turn up at a Boeing plant and say, "hey, come this thing is years late, delaminating in service and can't go as far as you said" was he?

Let's hope Boeing can quickly sort out the early in service issues and get this beauty performing smoothly for many decades to come.


User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3963 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Pretty cool flight path.



User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19738 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2579 times:

Quoting aerlingusa330 (Reply 7):

He'd never go there because it's a Right-to-Work state.

We're getting OT, but the other issue is that SC's political establishment is rather hostile to Obama. He'll get a rather warmer reception in liberal Seattle (and surrounds).

Quoting VZLA787 (Reply 8):
Remember, organized labor is one of the main contributors of Obama's campaign.

Yup. But Boeing donates heavily, too. It's important to note that while a major corporation like Boeing or GM may favor one candidate over another, they will donate heavily to both so as to curry favor, no matter which candidate wins. On the corporate level, B might prefer Romney, I guarantee they are donating heavily to both.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2482 times:

Quoting VZLA787 (Reply 8):
Because the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is trying to close Boeing's factory in South Carolina due to the use of non-union labor.

How about a fact check before posting drivel.


User currently onlinejetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7410 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 14):
Quoting VZLA787 (Reply 8):
Because the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is trying to close Boeing's factory in South Carolina due to the use of non-union labor.

How about a fact check before posting drivel.

While the post above overall is off the mark, the NLRB, in conjunction with Obama and the DOJ, they were doing everything they could to stop the SC plant from happening, once they found it was going to be a non-union workforce.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

Methinks Boeing, general electric, and united airlines are all in bed with the Obama administration....

(throws up on keyboard)



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1797 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Unfortunately this thread has been turned into a political debate and will be moved to the non-aviation forum.


Rgds

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 13):
While the post above overall is off the mark, the NLRB, in conjunction with Obama and the DOJ, they were doing everything they could to stop the SC plant from happening, once they found it was going to be a non-union workforce.

That too is factually wrong. They never asked for SC to be shut down. They asked for a permanent second line in Washington.

To remedy the alleged unfair labor practices, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order that would require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state. The complaint does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility, nor does it prohibit Boeing from assembling planes there.
Source: NLRB


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1698 times:

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 13):
the NLRB, in conjunction with Obama and the DOJ,

The "in conjuction" part's wrong, too. As I said in another thread, Breitbart went fishing for NLRB emails with an FOIA request, and found absolutely no evidence that the NLRB was acting at the behest of the White House.

And I have no idea how the DOJ is supposed to factor in. Because they weren't involved at all, as far as I can tell.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39888 posts, RR: 74
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 3):
Would have been cool if he visited the Boeing 787 plant in South Carolina

        
He would revisit the Solyndra plant before stepping foot at CHS.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 14):
Methinks Boeing, general electric, and united airlines are all in bed with the Obama administration....

General Electric paid ZERO taxes, outsourced jobs to China and Obama brings on their CEO Jeffrey Immelt as his jobs czar!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
CEO Jeffrey Immelt as his jobs czar!


Which is illegal!...Obama could care less about most everything. Does anyone here think he even has knowledge of 787 aircraft nor does he desire too? This, the same man that now wants to reduce the US nuclear stockpile to 300 units while rogue nations around the world are beefing up their programs...Good timing!...The man is intentionally trying to gut this nation like a fresh caught fish. Why does the PRESS sit silent on this issue?...    Oh...stupid me...he owns them too. Think Einstein wrote this...it is most profound..."I know not the weapons of World War Three, but I can assure you that World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones"...


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39888 posts, RR: 74
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 19):
Which is illegal!...Obama could care less about most everything.

The Constitution be damned is his attitude.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 19):
This, the same man that now wants to reduce the US nuclear stockpile to 300 units while rogue nations around the world are beefing up their programs...Good timing!...The man is intentionally trying to gut this nation like a fresh caught

His excuse is that America was evil years ago and these other poor nations just want nukes to power their homes....  
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 19):
Why does the PRESS sit silent on this issue?...

They're still in love with this man. They're still caught up with the idea of him being a historical President and will trash anyone that criticizes him.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1478 times:

I guess the last two posts left everyone else speechless, too.
  


User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 21):
I guess the last two posts left everyone else speechless, too.

Yup. I honestly don't know where they come up with those conclusions. The Weekly World News closed down in 2007.

[Edited 2012-02-21 12:04:25]

User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6818 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 21):
I guess the last two posts left everyone else speechless, too.

Nope. Supe's on the money. The NLRB, at Obama's direction, is improperly interfering with a private company's rightful business decision.

Be grateful Boeing isn't going offshore. Only this administration would be hostile to job creation (as long as they're UNION jobs, that is) when unemployment is once again breaking over 9%, not including underemployed and those who stopped looking.


User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 23):
Only this administration would be hostile to job creation (as long as they're UNION jobs, that is) when unemployment is once again breaking over 9%, not including underemployed and those who stopped looking.

The administration is not hostile to Boeing or to job creation.

But here's something that isn't factored in to the growth of jobs in right-to-work states like South Carolina - those jobs are poached from other states - not from overseas. Yes, they are lower cost jobs, but they also produce workers who must rely more heavily on government services and get progressively less compensation than the workers in other areas of the country who "cost more."

The result is degradation of the working and middle classes all over the country even if the number of jobs remains even. The investors and the corporations make more, while those who do the actual work make less. I'm not sure why we should pretend that shuffling jobs from one state to another while simultaneously lowering the wages and benefits of those jobs is a good thing, because it isn't. It might keep the numbers up, but it's a slow degradation rather than a quick one. It's still a step down.

[Edited 2012-02-21 12:12:27]

User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 23):
The NLRB, at Obama's direction

Nope.


User currently onlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 1475 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 16):
That too is factually wrong. They never asked for SC to be shut down. They asked for a permanent second line in Washington.

WHO CARES?? What gives the US government any right to start asking any company to keep lines open based on the fact that they want to move. Listen carefully, it is their company and if they want to move it to where-ever-the-hell-they-want it should be their right. It is certainly not the NLRB's right to tell them no or make demands. You might read this as "they never said no, they just asked the second line in Seattle remain," but really. Are you that clueless? That means "NO, YOU CAN'T OPEN SC UNLESS YOU DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO."

Think of it this way, next time you want to move to a bigger/better house outside of a city where the taxes are lower, do you think the current city you live in can say you must maintain your present house to buy another in a separate location? Of course not. Screw the NLRB and the Unions. I say if any company can build the same product in another state let them. It's amazing how people continue to back this President. Sooner or later he's going to step on your toes and I'll just sit back an laugh at you for being so naive.
Next time Boeing might just shift production to Mexico or somewhere similar based on this incident. King Obama can do nothing to stop it and how are you going to defend that?? I'm sure you'll still have some lame excuse to protect "The One."

Look at the companies from overseas locating to the South East US. BMW, Nissan, Hyundai, VW, ETC. Nissan just announced a new line of Infinit JX cars in the Smyrna TN plant and THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE lined up for the second-shift jobs. And you know what? No union at all. Why? Because people here realize the fact that they can get a good, well paying job while not paying the Union Thugs dues who do nothing but pass the profits to Obama and the Democrats.

Maybe one of these days Ford, Chrysler, and GM might catch a clue. I give Boeing all the credit in the world for trying.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently onlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 1473 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 24):
But here's something that isn't factored in to the growth of jobs in right-to-work states like South Carolina - those jobs are poached from other states - not from overseas. Yes, they are lower cost jobs, but they also produce workers who must rely more heavily on government services and get progressively less compensation than the workers in other areas of the country who "cost more."

The result is degradation of the working and middle classes all over the country even if the number of jobs remains even. The investors and the corporations make more, while those who do the actual work make less.

Wow. You're delusional. Might want to go check you're data. While Boeing workers in SC might make less than those in Seattle, they have a much lower cost of living. As in my last post, THOUSANDS of people lined up for $15-$20/hour second-shift jobs at Nissan in Smyrna TN. Why? Unlike the high cost of union filled cities, you can live on that here. While I agree SC and other South East States might use more government resources than the contribute to, that doesn't mean everyone in those states are a drag on society. You can easily make a living on these wages here. Sounds like you fell for yet another Union Lie.

Sooner or later so many companies will be here in the south you will see a shift to these states using less and less resources and becoming positive contributors to the overall US government tax system.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 27):
Wow. You're delusional.

Well, you can feel free to call me delusional if you want, but you've just told me that one set of workers will make less than another set of workers in the same country for doing the same job, which more or less proves my point.

Capitalism doesn't only serve corporations. Individual workers need to be capitalists too - and demand the most out of their labor. That's why unions exist, so that workers can, in fact, better negotiate a return for their work, just as a car dealer negotiates a price with you for a better return on his work, and the car company negotiates a price with the dealer for their work.

Frankly, it's irrelevant that the cost of living is lower in South Carolina than in Washington which, honestly I think is a debatable point. The Cost of living is much lower than either in, say, Wichita.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 27):
THOUSANDS of people lined up for $15-$20/hour second-shift jobs at Nissan in Smyrna TN. Why?

Because they cannot get work elsewhere, or are unwilling to move to places that pay higher wages. I can't say I blame some of them, it isn't easy to uproot yourself and move elsewhere. And they've been conditioned to hear that unions are somehow bad, when in fact, a Union could put more money in their pocket, and isn't that the nature of capitalism? Get more for your product?

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 27):
You can easily make a living on these wages here. Sounds like you fell for yet another Union Lie.

If it's a lie, why are you confirming it to be true? I'm telling you that those jobs migrate to places that pay less and that that is an overall drain on jobs and resources. And you're telling me that yes, in fact, it is.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 27):
Sooner or later so many companies will be here in the south you will see a shift to these states using less and less resources and becoming positive contributors to the overall US government tax system.

That's not correct.

Most of those companies are lured there by huge tax breaks, which means they pay little into the tax system for setting up shop there. Then the workers make less money, which means less money going into the tax system. They still require the same amount of care and have the same issues - but without good benefits, they'll be increasingly likely to rely on the system for those benefits. It is no secret that despite not having the highest population of any geographic region, the southern states have the highest medicaid costs, and the some of the highest rates of poverty and hunger, and generally receive far more than they give in terms of taxes.

And again, nationally, paying workers less means that the overall income of the working and middle classes either stagnates or declines overall. The cost of living for local things might be lower in South Carolina, but buying a Truck? That costs the same all over. Workers paid less by corporations paying fewer or no taxes because of where they set up - that's just a recipe for decline.

Now as for unions, do you like working 16 hour days? Working on the weekend? How about working with the door locked from the outside? No? Thank unions that you don't have to.

The factories set up in the south that are intentionally non-union weaken the bargaining power of all workers, for good or ill, resulting in lower wages and lower benefits. And guess what - there's always cheaper labor in Vietnam. And eventually poeple in Vietnam will face labor competition from people in Botswana or Turkmenistan or some other place. Ask anybody who worked in the furniture industry - once a cornerstone of industry in the Carolinas.

I don't really understand the constant vilifying of unions and the insistence on going back to a time when there were no unions. We have very good historical data on what that was like, and it was not better for ordinary people.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 26):
Listen carefully, it is their company and if they want to move it to where-ever-the-hell-they-want it should be their right. It is certainly not the NLRB's right to tell them no or make demands.

No, you listen carefully. When you enter in to a contract you need to fulfill your commitments. Even when that commitment is that you will not move jobs as retaliation for a strike you do not like but have agreed is the right of your employees.

Boeing's management was stupid stating the strike as part of the reason for going outside Washington. Simple as that. Don't try to put the blame somewhere it doesn't belong.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39888 posts, RR: 74
Reply 30, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1398 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 26):
Next time Boeing might just shift production to Mexico or somewhere similar based on this incident.

Very true. In fact, Boeing could have easily moved to Canada, Brasil, China and even Russia. Those countries can build airplanes too.
I wasn't a fan of the CHS plant but I understand why Boeing did it. I'm happy they're keep jobs in the United States.

A bit off topic but was Solyndra employees unionized......?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 31, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 27):
Sooner or later so many companies will be here in the south you will see a shift to these states using less and less resources and becoming positive contributors to the overall US government tax system.

Not likely. As fast as these states gain new jobs, they are constantly shedding other jobs. Ironically, despite having low labor costs and being "business friendly", South Carolina has unemployment that is higher than most of the country.

And with such low wages, these folks will still contribute little toward federal taxes. Consider that someone making $15-20/hr supporting a family of four would pay virtually nothing in Federal withholding.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 40
Reply 32, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1327 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 28):
Well, you can feel free to call me delusional if you want, but you've just told me that one set of workers will make less than another set of workers in the same country for doing the same job, which more or less proves my point.

And what is the problem with that? Nothing unfair about it, it's called competition. Let's not forget that the new set of workers is also inexperienced and their wages will reflect this for a while.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 33, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1302 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 32):

And what is the problem with that?

Not everybody wants to live an anarchic Ayn-Rand inspired universe where the workers are all chasing the lowest possible wage just for a chance to feed themselves. If they can get to work at all, that is, since there are no roads or police in that world.

Perhaps one of the reasons why Obama went to Boeing is that he is President of all of those people - those in Washington, those in South Carolina, and everywhere else in our country. For the President or any national official, transferring jobs from one state to another so that overall the workers make less and less economic activity happens overall is not good for the country or the economy. It may be good for the people in that state where the new jobs are, but in the macro sense, this "competition" is a sort of slow self-devouring of wages overall.

Once all industrial work is in right-to-work states, those workers will have no bargaining power at all, and the workers in the other states will have to find some other kind of work. That may be good for lowering costs to manufacturers, but it's bad for all the workers - and once they are in a degraded economic position, they are not as good at being consumers or taxpayers either, because they don't have the resources.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39888 posts, RR: 74
Reply 34, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1292 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 33):

So what is your opinion about General Electric moving jobs to China, killing jobs in Wisconsin and Maytag closing a factory in Newton, Iowa only to open up in Mexico?
Is that a better move than Boeing?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 35, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1289 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 34):
Is that a better move than Boeing?

I didn't say it was. But I'm don't think taking jobs away from one part of the country to give them to another because you want workers overall to have fewer options and make less overall is something to be happy about. Particularly when looked at in conjunction with total opposition to any government program at all that might take some of the burden off of business' employee cost - such as a universal healthcare system.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39888 posts, RR: 74
Reply 36, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 35):
But I'm don't think taking jobs away from one part of the country to give them to another because you want workers overall to have fewer options and make less overall is something to be happy about.

That was the whole purpose of our republic. 50 states that set up their own laws and attract jobs, people, tourism, manufacturing, education, etc. We all learned this in 4th grade. All 50 states have a Lieutenant Governor that acts as a Commerce Secretary of some sort to lure business. It's up to businesses to decide if they want to move and set up shop in another state.
I'm not a fan of the move to South Carolina either but I understand their reason for doing it. I wasn't happy to see Boeing discontinue the 717 but I understand the economic reasons why they did it.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):
these folks will still contribute little toward federal taxes.

Washington needs to control their spending.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1273 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 36):
That was the whole purpose of our republic.

No it wasn't.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 36):
50 states that set up their own laws and attract jobs, people, tourism, manufacturing, education, etc.

Our country is one country, not fifty countries loosely organized into an EU type deal.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 36):
All 50 states have a Lieutenant Governor that acts as a Commerce Secretary of some sort to lure business. It's up to businesses to decide if they want to move and set up shop in another state.

If you think only in terms of what happens in your state, this is a valid approach. But what we're talking about is the overall economic health of the country. These strategies - keeping job numbers up but bringing jobs of equal number but lower quality and wages in some states while taking them away in others, that is merely robbing peter to pay paul.

Yes, it is up to businesses to determine what state they want to set up shop in. However, that business has to determine what the impact is overall. We should not be celebrating the lowering of wages across the board for doing the same or more work. Now aspects of that can be argued to be a fact of life - but I'm not sure why we would encourage it.

In the case of the NLRB, a legit complaint was brought - and acted upon - until the complainant withdrew it. Business are not free to act independent of the law.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 36):
Washington needs to control their spending.

An extremely simplistic answer which does not acknowledge the fact that simply cutting spending to fix our debt problem is a mathematical impossibility.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39888 posts, RR: 74
Reply 38, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1262 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 37):
We should not be celebrating the lowering of wages

Who's celebrating?

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 37):
An extremely simplistic answer which does not acknowledge the fact that simply cutting spending to fix our debt problem is a mathematical impossibility.

Printing money and spending 8 times what you bring in certainly isn't helping either.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 37):
Our country is one country, not fifty countries loosely organized into an EU type deal.

Many companies have moved to different states. Why did Obama get involved with Boeing's internal affairs?
In the end, it was nothing more than political posturing because the CHS plant is going forward.
All of those White House visits by Andy Stern didn't help out at all.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1256 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 38):
Why did Obama get involved with Boeing's internal affairs?

He didn't. Obama does not pick and choose what the NLRB does, and if even Andrew Brietbart couldn't find a link, then I would suggest to you that you should acknowledge that there isn't one.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 38):
All of those White House visits by Andy Stern didn't help out at all.

There's no causal link in here anywhere unless you're a big fan of conspiracy theories.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 38):
Printing money and spending 8 times what you bring in certainly isn't helping either.

So you would support raising taxes, yes?

[Edited 2012-02-22 10:37:33]

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39888 posts, RR: 74
Reply 40, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1251 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 39):

No conspiracy theories. Just calling it as I see it.
An Obama appointee is now asking a judge to order Boeing to relocate all 787 Dreamliner production to Washington state. Obama is caught up in this and can't run from it.


Quoting CargoLex (Reply 39):
So you would support raising taxes, yes?

Cut spending and simplify the tax code. If some people's taxes go up, so be it. I prefer a flat tax.
Cut wasteful spending such as aid to China to 'teach them how to be Green', $800,000 to teach tribal men in Africa how to wash their balls, Million$ of tax dollars going to set up green companies that go bankrupt within 14 months (Solyndra), aid to an 'ally' that continue to build settlements that further fuels the fire in an already turbulent region, getting involved in wars than only empower jihadist, etc.
So much wasteful spending can be cut.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1240 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 40):
No conspiracy theories. Just calling it as I see it.

You do tend to see them, and attribute MANY things to Obama that make other people shake their heads.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 40):
An Obama appointee is now asking a judge to order Boeing to relocate all 787 Dreamliner production to Washington state. Obama is caught up in this and can't run from it.

Okay, he's an Obama appointee. Anthony Kennedy is a Reagan appointee, but he doesn't generally vote the way conservative Republicans would like him to vote. Vaughn Walker, the guy who decided prop 8, was a Reagan and then an HW Bush appointee.

You are now suggesting that because an Obama appointee is dealing with a case that this appointee is acting at the personal behest of Obama and therefore there is no independent judiciary. It's an absurd claim.

Much like:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):
His excuse is that America was evil years ago and these other poor nations just want nukes to power their homes....

and...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):

They're still in love with this man. They're still caught up with the idea of him being a historical President and will trash anyone that criticizes him.

and...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):

The Constitution be damned is his attitude.


and...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 40):
$800,000 to teach tribal men in Africa how to wash their balls,

And more...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 40):
getting involved in wars than only empower jihadist,

Which President was that again?


I understand you don't like Obama, and that's fine. But you're so far out on a limb with these kinds of things, you're practically falling out of the tree. Nearly all of these things that you're saying, they're just not true.

I think I'd like to get back to talking about why Obama visited the plant again:

He's the President of the United States. Boeing is the number one exporter in the United States. Though there's lots of histrionics in here about the CHS deal and NLRB, the Obama administration has also been a strong booster of Boeing with the WTO and has helped Boeing's position around the world by trade deals, particularly the latest one with South Korea. He's the President of ALL Americans and all American companies, and honestly, it's entirely appropriate for him to have visited the factory.

[Edited 2012-02-22 11:26:29]

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39888 posts, RR: 74
Reply 42, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 41):
I understand you don't like Obama, and that's fine. But you're so far out on a limb with these kinds of things, you're practically falling out of the tree. Nearly all of these things that you're saying, they're just not true.

I'm not making this up. You can verify all of the about. Keep on shaking your head if you must.

Chat with you later.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1221 times:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. And that's okay too. I'd rather talk about Lincolns and Bonnevilles anyway.

User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3627 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1184 times:

It will be nice, if UA have a special name for that 787, because it will a special a/c, like Pan Am Clipper Juan T. Tripp, and Air Canada Gimi Glider. Let's see a 767 and A330, get prised by the leader of the greatest country in the world.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1160 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 32):
And what is the problem with that?

The problem is that there will not be enough people able to afford using the products.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 40):
An Obama appointee is now asking a judge to order Boeing to relocate all 787 Dreamliner production to Washington state. Obama is caught up in this and can't run from it.

What are you referring to?


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 46, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1158 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 21):
Quoting CargoLex (Reply 22):

Ignorance certainly must be bliss...where have you guys been the last 3.5 years?


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6674 posts, RR: 11
Reply 47, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1057 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 27):
Sooner or later so many companies will be here in the south you will see a shift to these states using less and less resources and becoming positive contributors to the overall US government tax system.

Or maybe the cost of living will go up ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 48, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 990 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):
And with such low wages, these folks will still contribute little toward federal taxes. Consider that someone making $15-20/hr supporting a family of four would pay virtually nothing in Federal withholding.

Yes. 100% correct. They will pay less federal taxes. HOWEVER, if the same people are all spread out working at small mom and pop businesses where they were being paid LESS (no difference or even less tax to the government), these people probably had no benefits. Now, when they go to work for Nissan, BMW, Benz, etc, at least they get great health care benefits, etc. THAT TAKES THEM OFF FED AND STATE HEALTH CARE PLANS. See how much money that saves???

Also, they probably now have paid vacations, sick time, etc. Paid vacations? Yes, now the family goes on vacation. 1,500 workers at Nissan hired? Yep, 1,500 vacations next year.

You have to look at the big picture, and not just the hourly wage. But then again it's just easier to spew out the lie of Union Workers getting better pay, etc...

Quoting Aesma (Reply 47):
Or maybe the cost of living will go up ?

Why would it? Without over inflated salaries things will stay in check. Especially if we can get the government unions out of the picture and pay those workers what they are worth. And it's not $100,000 to be a janitor in a New York school.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 984 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 48):
HOWEVER, if the same people are all spread out working at small mom and pop businesses where they were being paid LESS (no difference or even less tax to the government), these people probably had no benefits

Logical flaw number 1:

These new workers from east nowhere may make more now than they did working at home depot, but you've left some other workers who were making more in another location with no jobs at all. In the Net, that means overall income has declined, as have tax revenues.

Logical flaw number 2:

Some of these new workers may have moved away from other states to get these jobs, meaning that it's possible they were making more elsewhere, at perhaps a union plant.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 48):
Now, when they go to work for Nissan, BMW, Benz, etc, at least they get great health care benefits, etc.

Except, not as good as what they might have gotten at a factory with a union. They get vacations, I'm sure. But they don't get benefits that are as good as the workers they have displaced. And are not in a position to ever get better benefits or higher wages, because they have no bargaining power at all.

Suppose that inflation goes up an the cost of living goes up. The wage might not, if the company paying the wage doesn't feel like spending more money. The workers now have no leverage at all to ask for higher wages or better benefits.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 48):
You have to look at the big picture,

Indeed, it would be nice if you would.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 48):

Why would it? Without over inflated salaries things will stay in check. Especially if we can get the government unions out of the picture and pay those workers what they are worth.

Ah, this again.

Why pay teachers anything? After all, all they do is educate our children. And you know, they're so overpaid. Every time I'm on the Côte d'Azur I see public school teachers swanning around in their Bentley Continentals and Ferrari 612 Scagliettis. You can tell they are teachers as they are throwing money out of the car as they go and instructing people to count it while singing "La Marseillaise" into empty bottles of Cristal.

Oh those teacher salaries. So wasteful!

Or police? What do we need them for?

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 48):
And it's not $100,000 to be a janitor in a New York school.

Spoken like somebody with no knowledge at all of New York. The average school janitor in New York City this year will make $34,000.

I'm sure that's enough to have a Mercedes and room for a Pony in Smithville, Tennessee, but in New York City that's barely enough to live on.

Of course, even if it was the case - and perhaps somebody who's been working as a custodian for 50 years might have accrued a salary like that - what you're saying here is that somebody earning a larger salary in an expensive place to live is "bad" whereas you are defining the the same thing in the negative - people living in places with lower living expenses should earn lower wages - as "good." Hypocrisy.

[Edited 2012-02-23 16:15:21]

User currently onlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 970 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 49):
Except, not as good as what they might have gotten at a factory with a union. They get vacations, I'm sure. But they don't get benefits that are as good as the workers they have displaced. And are not in a position to ever get better benefits or higher wages, because they have no bargaining power at all.

You want to talk flaws? Ok. Here in the south, we have thousands of people lining up for these jobs. Every job every where. Why? Because they pay good for the area and have good benefits.

Why in your hard headed focus can you not see that if the people in a certain area are happy with the pay and benefits offered and don't demand a union. Why is it that you think conditions are so bad down here that people taking these jobs are living in filth, but in most situations a union is never voted in?

If these Nissan, BMW, Benz and other jobs are soooooooooooooooooooo bad and unfair to the people living here as you claim they are, why do people line up for them? Why is it when the plants are up and running, there is no rush for unionization?

Please, answer me that. Talk about flaws. Your flaw is simply that you believe everyone who works needs a union because every company out there sucks. No, they don't.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 49):
Some of these new workers may have moved away from other states to get these jobs, meaning that it's possible they were making more elsewhere, at perhaps a union plant.

Yea. Now that I think about it, those people who have had to move from Detroit where the unions killed that city might have a hard time moving to the south when their houses are worth $600. I see it now.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 961 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 50):
Why? Because they pay good for the area and have good benefits.

Yeah, but they could pay better. And eventually, these workers will be left with stagnating wages because there is no room to bargain for better ones. Yeah, it's great for now. But what about then? The problem here is that you're taking the "good enough for now" approach.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 50):
Why is it that you think conditions are so bad down here that people taking these jobs are living in filth,

I don't think or believe that.

Nor do I think that a person who does labor in Tennessee should be valued lower than a corresponding person who does the same job in Washington or Pennsylvania, all things being equal.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 50):
but in most situations a union is never voted in?

The option of unions has been purposefully excluded, with the threat of termination.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 50):
because every company out there sucks.

Also not my position. We haven't mentioned too many companies by name in this thread but the one major one we have is a company I really like and have a great deal of respect for.

Wanting better for workers and a better overall economy is not fundamentally incompatable with wanting businesses to succeed or liking businesses, large or small.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 50):

Please, answer me that. T

I already did. There are no other jobs there, and no real options as far as collective bargaining because of the vested interests in these states.

You can decry the ideas of collective bargaining and unions all you like, but if there hadn't ever been these things - things which our ancestors fought and died for - you would not enjoy the society you enjoy today. Perhaps you don't know about what working conditions in America were like in the 19th and early 20th century. There's plenty of information out there.

Obviously, I am not comparing the (extremely well run and good to work in) BMW factory in Spartanburg to the Pullman factory or a 19th century coal mine. But that is because there are unions and organized labor in other places to protect the entire labor force from ending up in this situation, and government regulations as well.

The problem here is that your ideas, while fine when balanced out by the ability for people to bargain collectively in some places, are undermining the forces that protect workers and, if left unchecked, could result in workers having no rights and no ability to better their station.

In effect, the gradual erosion of workers rights undermines workers of all stripes and all geographies. Yeah, the jobs at Smyrna (another very nice place to work) are good now. But without the counterbalance, they might not always be.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 50):
Now that I think about it, those people who have had to move from Detroit where the unions killed that city might have a hard time moving to the south when their houses are worth $600.

I'm sure you believe that, it's easier to blame unions for every ill than to talk about actual economic problems.

It should also be noted that I am specifically not saying, anywhere in here, that Unions are a panacea and that they only do good things.

The problem is, and I'll reiterate this, that one set of workers is being paid a different wage for doing the same job and has no way to negotiate that up, in the meantime, other workers are being displaced and left without jobs - but the cost of what they make remains constant. That is a clear downgrade for earning and employment. In the meantime, there is seemingly a crusade going on to rid the world of Unions - some of which might very well be extremely corrupt. But not all of them. And if you get rid of all of them, the good *and* the bad, you'll be left with nobody to advocate for labor at all.

[Edited 2012-02-23 17:30:24]

User currently onlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 948 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 51):
The problem is, and I'll reiterate this, that one set of workers is being paid a different wage for doing the same job and has no way to negotiate that up, in the meantime, other workers are being displaced and left without jobs - but the cost of what they make remains constant. That is a clear downgrade for earning and employment. In the meantime, there is seemingly a crusade going on to rid the world of Unions - some of which might very well be extremely corrupt. But not all of them. And if you get rid of all of them, the good *and* the bad, you'll be left with nobody to advocate for labor at all.

Thats all well and good. But you have brought up the fact that these non-union jobs will end up with stagnating wages. What's to say that if the Nissan jobs end up this way that Toyota doesn't move in to the same area and up the benefits and wages enough to steal the workers. Toyota gets well trained workers or Nissans ups the pay and benefits to keep them there. THATS HOW IT WORKS. Not by union reps holding companies hostage.

Case in point you ask? Peterbuilt had a truck plant in north Nashville. They went on strike every 4-5 years. Result? Plant closed. Yea. The Union really helped them there...

Clueless. That's what you are CargoLex. Clueless.. Catch the modern times. Unions are done. Like it or not. Their last resort is Obama and his ilk demanding companies bow to them and, again, in the end all that will do is have them move to other countries. Like it or not thats reality.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1271 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 939 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 52):
What's to say that if the Nissan jobs end up this way that Toyota doesn't move in to the same area and up the benefits and wages enough to steal the workers.

Is there a big Toyota factory going up in Smyrna that I don't know about?

You yourself have stated that costs are lower in these rural areas, cost of living, cost of real estate. But get enough factories together and it's not a rural area anymore.

There's another question begging here - why set up a second, rival factory in one place where you have to pay the workers more and then face increased pressure from your competitor when you could build it in some other isolated place where those other workers will be entirely dependent on you? It's a big country. There's plenty of places to go.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 52):
Not by union reps holding companies hostage.

Minimum Wage. Weekends. Paid Holidays. Eight hour workdays as the norm.

You like these things? Or should we get rid of them?

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 52):
They went on strike every 4-5 years. Result? Plant closed. Yea. The Union really helped them there...

Of course, the plant closed as a result of falling demand for heavy trucks, and the fact that Peterbilt had a non-union facility in Denton, Texas, that was larger anyway. If the plant closed because of the Union, you've proven my point about non-union plants funnelling jobs from one geographic area to another with the resulting scaling down of earning. If the plant closed because of falling demand, then the plant simply closed because not enough people wanted to buy Peterbilts. It happens that the plant closed at the height of the recession, as well.

Better yet, let's find out what Peterbilt's management had to say about it at the time:

Quote:
“This was a difficult, but necessary decision,” said Bill Jackson, Peterbilt General Manager. “The current and projected market conditions are very challenging and Peterbilt is aligning its production capacity with market demand. Peterbilt is proud to have been a member of the greater Nashville community for 40 years and we thank our employees for their excellent contribution.”

And...

Quote:
Plant Manager Larry Vessels said a labor dispute that stopped production at the plant last June had nothing to do with the closure.

At the time, heavy truck sales were down nearly 30% year over year and almost 51% over the previous three years.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 52):

Clueless. That's what you are CargoLex. Clueless..

And the personal attacks mean it's time to wrap it up.

[Edited 2012-02-23 20:01:35]

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 40
Reply 54, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 867 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 32):
Quoting CargoLex (Reply 33):

Poor logic and economic illiteracy is the problem with both of your arguments.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 55, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 813 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 53):
Is there a big Toyota factory going up in Smyrna that I don't know about?

No.. while I'm shaking my head. I never said there was. I said if the Nissan plant gets so bad here what's stopping Toyota from moving in and stealing the workers... geeze. Read.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 53):
It's a big country. There's plenty of places to go.

Yes. It is a big country. But Obama won't let you move to areas where it's not union friendly. The whole point of this thread. Remember that?

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 53):
Of course, the plant closed as a result of falling demand for heavy trucks, and the fact that Peterbilt had a non-union facility in Denton, Texas, that was larger anyway. If the plant closed because of the Union, you've proven my point about non-union plants funnelling jobs from one geographic area to another with the resulting scaling down of earning.

Did you ever stop for one minute and think that Peterbuilt kept the Texas plant open not because of wages, but because it didn't shut down for strikes every 4-5 years? Why is it that the same company can employ two different sets of employees at two plants, one kept producing non-stop but at "substandard wages" as you claim non-union workers make, but the higher paid "fairly compensated" employees had to shut it down so much? Please. Answer that one. Really. Low paid bottom feeders in Texas kept working while higher paid union workers in TN always complained. Tell me how the union helped out in that situation.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
President Obama Visits Afghanistan posted Fri Dec 3 2010 11:53:41 by propilot83
President Obama's Nato Summit posted Wed Nov 17 2010 14:30:40 by propilot83
Steve Kroft Interviews President Obama 60 Minutes posted Sun Nov 7 2010 18:05:41 by dxing
President Obama, "they Gotta Sit In Back". posted Thu Oct 28 2010 04:49:40 by dxing
President Obama To Supporters, "Buck Up". posted Tue Sep 28 2010 06:55:18 by dxing
President Obama's November Trip posted Fri Sep 24 2010 22:49:15 by propilot83
President Obama Signs Financial Reform Into Law posted Wed Jul 21 2010 12:21:44 by propilot83
President Obama ,Thank You posted Fri May 14 2010 09:57:18 by AGM100
President Obama Burned In Effigy In Kabul posted Wed Dec 30 2009 10:52:28 by DXing
President Obama's Nobel Speach In Full posted Thu Dec 10 2009 09:09:18 by Mortyman
President Obama, "they Gotta Sit In Back". posted Thu Oct 28 2010 04:49:40 by dxing
President Obama To Supporters, "Buck Up". posted Tue Sep 28 2010 06:55:18 by dxing
President Obama's November Trip posted Fri Sep 24 2010 22:49:15 by propilot83
President Obama Signs Financial Reform Into Law posted Wed Jul 21 2010 12:21:44 by propilot83
President Obama ,Thank You posted Fri May 14 2010 09:57:18 by AGM100
President Obama Burned In Effigy In Kabul posted Wed Dec 30 2009 10:52:28 by DXing
President Obama's Nobel Speach In Full posted Thu Dec 10 2009 09:09:18 by Mortyman