Guest Patriot Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 zerO has sent his secret operatives to Madison, WI. to support the strikers. The WI. governor has a 3 billion hole in his budget he's trying to cover and zerO is doing his best to show his support for the unions. zerO's community organizing mentality is on display here. What a disgraceful POS this clown is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 zerO has sent his secret operatives to Madison, WI. to support the strikers. The WI. governor has a 3 billion hole in his budget he's trying to cover and zerO is doing his best to show his support for the unions. zerO's community organizing mentality is on display here. What a disgraceful POS this clown is. For once you're right. A union-busting governor who blows a supposed "crisis" way out of proportion, claiming the state is deep in the red just a few weeks after giving more tax cuts, is a POS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 By the way, what's the source of your idiotic claim this time? What "secret operatives?" Got any facts or just the usual Patrat/2Stupid4Words word puke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gadfly Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 zerO has sent his secret operatives to Madison, WI. to support the strikers. The WI. governor has a 3 billion hole in his budget he's trying to cover and zerO is doing his best to show his support for the unions. zerO's community organizing mentality is on display here. What a disgraceful POS this clown is. A hole that he did quite a bit to create. The fact is-the governor is trying to break the unions. The unions offered to take both pay cuts AND benefit reductions but the Republicans said no-they want to force a clause that would strip the unions of collective bargaining rights-rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 A hole that he did quite a bit to create. The fact is-the governor is trying to break the unions. The unions offered to take both pay cuts AND benefit reductions but the Republicans said no-they want to force a clause that would strip the unions of collective bargaining rights-rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Moron Gadfly, the first amendment deals with freedom of religion, speech and assembly. Looks like someone didn't pay attention in history class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 A hole that he did quite a bit to create. The fact is-the governor is trying to break the unions. The unions offered to take both pay cuts AND benefit reductions but the Republicans said no-they want to force a clause that would strip the unions of collective bargaining rights-rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Again, Moron Gadfly, he is a new governor just elected. How do you suppose he "did quite a bit to create"? Go pop open another Bud and read the comics page, it's more your speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 How do you suppose he "did quite a bit to create"? Simple, Stupid. Tax cuts decrease revenue, thereby increasing the deficit. The claim is always that the cuts are to help small business but when you look at the facts, you realize that they mainly help the rich and don't create jobs in proportion to the lost revenue. The middle class ends up taking it in the neck, as the middle class always does under right-wing Republicans. In this case, they're trying to bust the unions. http://blogs.forbes.com/leesheppard/2011/02/15/wisconsins-cheesy-tax-cuts/ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/wisconsins_fiscal_condition.html http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_92e0c7e2-3bd8-11e0-861d-001cc4c03286.html And of course you didn't answer the question about your made-up "secret operatives." As usual, you're lying. You don't even bother to defend your lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gadfly Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Moron Gadfly, the first amendment deals with freedom of religion, speech and assembly. Looks like someone didn't pay attention in history class. Yes, and that someone would be you. There is in fact precedent that collective bargaining is protected. Again, Moron Gadfly, he is a new governor just elected. How do you suppose he "did quite a bit to create"? Go pop open another Bud and read the comics page, it's more your speed. He is addressing the projected deficit, which was raised quite a bit by his tax breaks. Perhaps you should consider who you call a moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gadfly Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Simple, Stupid. Tax cuts decrease revenue, thereby increasing the deficit. The claim is always that the cuts are to help small business but when you look at the facts, you realize that they mainly help the rich and don't create jobs in proportion to the lost revenue. The middle class ends up taking it in the neck, as the middle class always does under right-wing Republicans. In this case, they're trying to bust the unions. http://blogs.forbes.com/leesheppard/2011/02/15/wisconsins-cheesy-tax-cuts/ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/wisconsins_fiscal_condition.html http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_92e0c7e2-3bd8-11e0-861d-001cc4c03286.html And of course you didn't answer the question about your made-up "secret operatives." As usual, you're lying. You don't even bother to defend your lies. He also never answered my main point. If this was about saving money, why did the Republicans not accept the union offer of lower wages and benefits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Again, Moron Gadfly, he is a new governor just elected. How do you suppose he "did quite a bit to create"? Go pop open another Bud and read the comics page, it's more your speed. hey liar, lop off another piece of your gov't issued free cheese, put your foil hat on and and get today's talking points from the Teahadists (I think it's the witches turn). Oh as per the moron in chief beck, get google off your computer. You make Charles Manson look sane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Yes, and that someone would be you. There is in fact precedent that collective bargaining is protected. No there isn't. What case(s) do you claim support your argument? I believe this text accurately summarizes the law. http://books.google.com/books?id=BkZfdC-w-vMC&pg=PA866&lpg=PA866&dq=%22collective+bargaining%22+%22first+amendment%22&source=bl&ots=xOmviVbgsV&sig=cHwPZVCOszuS9zEHMYXurx0-QsY&hl=en&ei=ygFjTdSWEMOAlAe7lMnbCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22collective%20bargaining%22%20%22first%20amendment%22&f=false Think about it. If the Constitution protected a specific right to bargain collectively, that would mean that . . . well, what would it mean? Would each worker have a right to a union? That's not what the Constitution says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 And of course you didn't answer the question about your made-up "secret operatives." As usual, you're lying. You don't even bother to defend your lies. They're the ones that showed up in the black helicopters, of course! The same ones with the mind control hats that out tinfoil hats block. Duh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gadfly Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 No there isn't. What case(s) do you claim support your argument? I believe this text accurately summarizes the law. http://books.google.com/books?id=BkZfdC-w-vMC&pg=PA866&lpg=PA866&dq=%22collective+bargaining%22+%22first+amendment%22&source=bl&ots=xOmviVbgsV&sig=cHwPZVCOszuS9zEHMYXurx0-QsY&hl=en&ei=ygFjTdSWEMOAlAe7lMnbCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22collective%20bargaining%22%20%22first%20amendment%22&f=false Think about it. If the Constitution protected a specific right to bargain collectively, that would mean that . . . well, what would it mean? Would each worker have a right to a union? That's not what the Constitution says. This merely states that employers do not have to engage in collective bargaining. The right to form a union is in fact protected by the First Amendment with the landmark case being McLaughlin v. Tilendis (1967). What the state is trying to do, however, is not just not participate in collective bargaining but eliminate it altogether. This most likely will not stand even if it gets passed. Now I must state-that is two Republicans who have utterly failed to address my actual point, instead trying to nitpick. The Republicans are flat-out lying-they claim that it is about saving money but the unions have already agreed to all of their financial demands. So how do you justify the lies? Do you simply not care that you are being lied to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 This merely states that employers do not have to engage in collective bargaining. The right to form a union is in fact protected by the First Amendment with the landmark case being McLaughlin v. Tilendis (1967). What the state is trying to do, however, is not just not participate in collective bargaining but eliminate it altogether. This most likely will not stand even if it gets passed. Now I must state-that is two Republicans who have utterly failed to address my actual point, instead trying to nitpick. The Republicans are flat-out lying-they claim that it is about saving money but the unions have already agreed to all of their financial demands. So how do you justify the lies? Do you simply not care that you are being lied to? If you're referring to me as one of those Republicans, you're wrong. That was my post and I'm a liberal Democrat. It's just that what you wrote isn't true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.