ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: "Brother Bill"

The only jobs GW has sent overseas in the US Army.

GW has outsourced Republican telemarketing for contributions to call
centers in
India. He has refused to take a stance against any outsourcing.

PROVE IT.


Duh. Prove he hasn't. You started the assertions.

But, just for your needed education, try the following:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/art...oming/4624eddd
c346dde0c920e515aad2129a.txt

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0301/031301p1.htm

http://www.csa-dc.org/press_shop/CSA...the%20News.htm

http://bbspot.com/politics/News/2003...tsourcing.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec18.html

Now, it's your turn, Brother Bill. Please prove that Bush has NOT sent jobs
overseas. Bet you can't!

Why no real address? Not enough courage to attach your name to your clear lies?

Try again, loser.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From the Washington Post link:

"John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government
Employees, is gearing up for a long, difficult battle with the Bush
administration.

The union plans to spend $1 million on an advertising campaign"

BREAK

Isn't spending $1,000,000 of union members money on advertising called
"outsourcing?" Maybe it would be cheaper for them to use that money
in some other way than hiring Madison Avenue to lease time on Ted
Turner Network to talk to the People.

continue...

"in key presidential campaign states to argue that taxpayer money is
being wasted on government contractors and that the administration's
outsourcing efforts make it more difficult to deliver health care to
military veterans."

BREAK

Military Members are NOT unionized and are not part of the Federal
Employees Union. I wonder why this union has decided to pick up the
cause of Veterans?

continue...

"The goal, Gage said, "is not so much to saturate the voters with our
message. We're trying to get our message out to the people who follow
politics closely and to encourage the candidates to pick up our
issues."

The union also plans to spend at least $700,000 lobbying on Capitol
Hill in coming months, and AFGE legislative director Beth Moten and
her staff will focus on outsourcing, pay, overtime, labor rights and
employee rights."

BREAK

Hmmm. More outsourcing. I wonder who will receive the $700,000 lobby
fee. Why can't the union just send over Beth and a couple of their
reps to talk to government members on Capitol Hill? I'm sure a few
first class plane tickets, a few nights in a luxury suite and an open
bar tab would cost far less than $700,000.

So in the end, no matter who they are, they're pretty free with the
money as long as its not coming out of their own pockets.

From: (Brian)

So in the end, no matter who they are, they're pretty free with the
money as long as its not coming out of their own pockets.



Well, I guess you don't like labor unions. Is that why you think it's good for
Bush to send US jobs overseas?

So, YOUR complaint is that labor unions are spending their members' money to
protest outsourcing? So you grant that Bush is sending US jobs overseas, right?
I'll be honest, sir - your reply is one of the worst attempts I've ever seen at
refutation by attempting to shift the focus of an argument.

Let me know when you can actually refute any of the data about Bush
deliberately supporting sending US jobs abroad.

Bryant

ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian)

So in the end, no matter who they are, they're pretty free with the
money as long as its not coming out of their own pockets.



Well, I guess you don't like labor unions. Is that why you think it's good for
Bush to send US jobs overseas?

I didn't see that in the Wash. Post article.

So, YOUR complaint is that labor unions are spending their members' money to
protest outsourcing?

I just asked why labor unions don't do some hiring and do for
themselves all the lobbying against outsourcing instead of outsourcing
everything and complaining about outsourcing.

So you grant that Bush is sending US jobs overseas, right?

No, I didn't see anything in the Wash. Post article validating Bush
sending phone calls over to India.

I'll be honest, sir - your reply is one of the worst attempts I've ever seen at
refutation by attempting to shift the focus of an argument.

Oh, so sorry. Had the Wash. Post article you linked us to included
any validation of your assertion that Bush outsourced phone calls to
India, I would have commented on it. But it didn't.

Let me know when you can actually refute any of the data about Bush
deliberately supporting sending US jobs abroad.

I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.

But what I did find was that the fed-union appears to do a lot of
outsourcing themselves. Doesn't matter because its someone else's
money, I guess.

I guess that you and I can process identical information and see
different outcomes. Wonder what that means?

From: (Brian)

I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.


Bull****. The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are
protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely
won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is
clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time.

But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've
chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove
something you assert.

ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian)

I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.


Bull****.

double-BS back at you.

The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are
protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely
won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is
clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time.

JC and I were commenting on a supposed Bush policy, not a Clinton
policy. If you want to protest old Clinton policies, take it up with
the Democrat party.

But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've
chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove
something you assert.

My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.

Thanks for not wasting any more of my precious time.

Brian

(Brian) wrote in message om...
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian)

I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.


Bull****.

double-BS back at you.

The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are
protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely
won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is
clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time.

JC and I were commenting on a supposed Bush policy, not a Clinton
policy. If you want to protest old Clinton policies, take it up with
the Democrat party.

Correction - that should read "Soliloguy and I..."

But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've
chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove
something you assert.

My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.

Thanks for not wasting any more of my precious time.

Brian

From: (Brian)

My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.


Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that is
encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs.

Anyone with the minimal effort to check a URL could see that it was Bush. Check
this URL:

http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne...h_permits_outs
ourcing.html

(For those with not enough time to click a link

Bush Permits Outsourcing

"Higher skilled jobs are going away," said Pricilla Tate, Director of the
Technology Managers Forum, a New York-based group representing IT executives at
large companies. "There are people who will not get jobs in the IT industry
again -- they just have been replaced." And the President isn't going to do a
thing about it.
ComuterWorld is running a story titled "Bush Administration Won't Impede
Offshore Outsourcing". While it's fully within the power of the President to
make it harder for companies to outsource work to offshore firms, there are no
plans to. Instead of providing a solution, Chris Israel, a deputy assistant
secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce, said that "the answer to economic
challenges is growth and innovation."
Growth and innovation. When Detroit and Japan went toe-to-toe over auto
manufacturing, how quickly did growth and innovation help? Ten years? Twenty
years? Or how about textile manufacturing, with the United States going up
against China and other countries with poor human rights records? The truth is
that the manufacturing jobs went overseas and didn't come back. How long can
skilled workers remain unemployed?
Growth and innovation aren't standing well in the face of greed and
commoditization. Many of the IT workers in the United States created processes
and technologies that have enabled the globalization of information technology,
and they've lost their jobs as a result. They weren't rewarded for their
innovation.
The Gartner Group predicted that ten percent of all IT jobs are going offshore
in 2004. Despite the failing economy, despite all the indicators that this is a
crisis in the making, George Bush isn't doing a thing to prevent jobs going
overseas. His economic policy of tax cuts for the rich did not create jobs, and
his economic policy of tax cuts for parents did not create jobs. He's not even
attempting to set guidelines for trade agreements based on comparable workers
rights and human rights. His economic policy is a failure, and shows that he is
incapable of helping to retain the jobs we have, even as more jobs are lost."

Any evidence to the contrary? No? I wonder why not?

Bryant
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Oui, it was a Klinton policy!

What a putz you are M. Bryant.
--
Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr
This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr

http://forums.club-internet.fr/