Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Sorry, I was transcribing some ancient Korean poems in my head last night and the "utt" sound is phonetically the same as "uck" in that language. My bad...
But being able to fire someone isn't the kind of protection we're talking about. Yes, in general most workplaces are pretty safe but the credit should be given to the people who think like Ralph Nader (even though he's a kook) rather than Ronald Reagan. But under Bush the anti-government attitude sent regulations in the other direction. Granted, some conservatives think this was a good thing, who cares if Timmy's dad dies in the coal mine as long as the government doesn't get in the way.
I don't think you really understand why some are so fascinated by the man. 1) He's black 2) he's inspiring 3) he seems to be pretty smart 4) he's pragmatic 5) we're in the middle of a generational shift and it looks like the people actually bucked the system and chose someone who (on paper at least) might be just what we need to lead us into the next century.
Obama has trancended the traditional wedge issues and has the potential to really change the dialogue in this country...
...or he could be a complete disaster. But I figured I'd at least give him a chance before passing judgement, as I did with GWB.
-spence
|
Maybe if you could supply so statistics to back that up it would help.
Here's a link
http://www.bls.gov/iif/, in every catagory, the work place injury rates have steadily improved year to year.
This is what people and the media have done in regards to Bush. Throw out an untruth, say it often enough, Bush won't defend himself, and it becomes fact. The fact is the workplace is safer now then 8 years ago.
As far as Obama goes, I agree with you.
Threaded Mode