That's right. Now those GI's would be beaten, shot, tazered, arrested, and then not heard from again.

for equal time for those who think big business is evil, here's one where they were....

The Battle of Matewan

ironically, though BHO claims to be for the working, union man, he is anti coal. coal is the one industry where more blood was shed than in any others as unions formed up to protect workers. sort of sad, to be forgotten that way, the blood and the coal dust will never be cleansed from the nation's memory

http://www.historyonair.com/pdf/hp71_The_Battle_of_Blair_Mountain.pdf

It's ironic how the Democrats are turning coal miners into Republicans.

Romney once stood in front of a coal plant, pointed at it, and said "This plant kills." A man can't be more pro-coal than that, hmm?

since we are counting how high we can pee, BHO said that "if someone wants too open a coal plant, they can, but it will bankrupt them" (paraphrase)

Romney doesn't claim to be pro union, BHO does. As a union man who is the son, grandson and greatgrandson of union men, I find that ironic and sad.

Do you think that the UAW considers Obama to be pro-union?

here's another since we were talking the other day about the National Guard shooting at Kent State. This one had the NG colluding with business to oust striking miners and the subsequent slaughter of miners..

Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

don't know their official stance, but I imagine that they might

So here's the clip where Obama said that. It's from January '08. And he said it in reference to his cap and trade ideas which never came to anything because of a Republican house. BUT I don't think he was against unions at all TX, he was advocating a way of moving money from one sector of the energy industry to another—and the jobs moving with that change. This was before he won the election, and he wasn't about strangling the energy sector's jobs—he was about using fines and incentives to move the emphasis from one side of the energy portfolio to the other.

I think he probably likes King Harvest (will surely come) as well. Or at least he should if he has any sense. Sorry, your post reminded me of the lyrics.

And here's more on the cap and trade causes job losses thing showing how it's false. And also in that system, coal plants would only have been bankrupted if they failed to retool their businesses to keep under the caps placed on their greenhouse gas emissions. I thought it was a non-issue now... is it not?

for now, but the idea of men & women who are involved in the mining industry to magically become involved in new energy technology at the same rate of hire as they have now is a fairy tale. I do not support the tenets of cap & trade and fear that it will come back again. it will sound the death knell for american energy industry, except for the chosen few.

The irony of this story is that TXJake (I believe) is somehow relating it to voter fraud on the D side.

In thinking about the present, It seems pretty clear to me that the R's pushing the new Jim Crow anti minority voting laws are no doubt impacting some of our recent gulf war vets who are African American and Hispanic.

So the R's are in the position of being in the same position as the corrupt Government in TX's story in denying good vets their right to vote.

You know just in case anybody wants to bring the story up to the present.

I would want to hear from Obama how he proposes to have the new jobs created by emphasizing the role of new energy technologies be available to people located in traditional coal regions myself. But I do think that there would be close to a parallel number of jobs created or more in cleaner energy, so job totals would be the same or better for the energy sector. But where, that's a thorny problem...

If the dems win the House I'm sure Obama will focus on refining the healthcare act because it will be a legacy issue, even though, in my opinion, it would be better to focus on job creation in the energy sector with new technologies. Preferably with a little cap and trade but a lot more subsidy reallocation from pure oil companies—which I think is something those companies are anticipating and which is why they are all moving into partial clean energy creation, so they won't be barred if whoever wins the election starts making clean energy investment a criteria for getting subsidies (if it's not already, actually, come to think of it).

actually, this all morphed from a joke that a forum member made about vote fraud, then it morphed further from there. not sure about the new jim crow laws, want to publish a link?

Who was joking?