Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Faking Fiscal Problems To Bust Unions
Tweet
This is what Republicans basically believe, they’re just generally not as blatant as Walker with this.
Unlike true austerity measures — service rollbacks, furloughs, and other temporary measures that cause pain but save money — rolling back worker’s bargaining rights by itself saves almost nothing on its own. But Walker’s doing it anyhow, to knock down a barrier and allow him to cut state employee benefits immediately.
Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state’s fiscal bureau — the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office — concluded that Wisconsin isn’t even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.
God forbid Walker win this fight, other right-wing governors will try even harder to copy this plan to destroy unions.
156 Responses to “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Faking Fiscal Problems To Bust Unions”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
There’s about a 98% chance that Republicans think you make too much money.
And that they in turn, don’t make enough.
Ed Schultz (who has been on this story like a mongoose on a cobra) astutely pointed out “one of the only honest things Karl Rove has ever said” last night… that this emphasis on destroying the few remaining active unions in the country is all about taking a player off the board put in place by the Citizens United decision.
If unions have no bargaining power, there is no incentive to join them, and pay dues. Then the unions won’t be able to buy ads in the next election pointing out how this or that Tea Party candidate or Club for Growth wanker wants to further eviscerate the working class. The only entities with the money to afford large ad buys in competitive districts will be large corporations and the Chamber of Commerce. Which was, after all, the point of the exercise.
Is he still threatening to call the National Guard? Because if so, really don’t like where this could end up.
The Party of Ideas
Don’t like the prospect of losing an impending vote that will negatively impact some of your biggest supporters? Then flee the state to stop the vote from taking place! That’s how adults legislate, don’t you know.
Democrats bravely standing shoulder to shoulder with the people of Wisconsin… from a resort in neighboring Illinois, that is.
@Dave: Remember all the Rethuglican whinging about how it was necessary to filibuster Health Care and every other Dem initiative because the House Dems just wouldn’t allow enough time to properly debate? Back then, blocking legislation by any. means. necessary. was the noble thing to do!
Of course now that WI Repubs are pushing through a law without debate, without hearings (excuse me, without hearings except those packed with bused-in Club for Growth wankers), and Democrats are using the legislative tactics available to them to allow time for the voices of the public to be heard, such delaying tactics are an immoral cancer on the body politic!
Apparently to winguts, the morality of a particular legislative measure is directly proportional to how much it fucks over working people. Same as it ever was.
Brave Wisconsin Democrats ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When defeat reared it’s ugly head,
They bravely turned their tails and fled.
Brave liberal pols they turned about
And gallantly they chickened out.
Bravely climbed aboard their bus.
Could not flee the state in a swifter rush.
Bravest of the braaaave, the Democrats!
And here I was, absolutely certain that Oliver would pull out one his old favorites, the Parrot, oops, ‘scuse me, I mean Party of No.
This is how a Party of No behaves, Oliver. Like Texas Democrats some years back, they take their ball and run off like the cowards they are.
Republicans stood in for two years and took their filibuster proof beatings, while Obama still had to cut sweetheart deals, stab allies in the back, break campaign promises by the dozens, lie like a Turkish rug and get his pals to bend procedural rules to the breaking point to get his precious Healthcare bill passed.
Your party makes Clay Aiken look like Clay Matthews.
Aw, the mean ole’ Democrats aren’t playing by your rules. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Repulbicans: For filibusters before they’re against them.
Nah. Just for SHOWING UP FOR WORK. It seems neither Wisconsin teachers nor Wisconsin Democrats (but I repeat myself) find that an obligation worth living up to.
Can’t say I’m a bit surprised.
Even TPM concedes that making adjustments to the Union’s collective bargaining power has some value : “rolling back worker’s bargaining rights by itself saves almost nothing on its own.” ["almost nothing" = something]
And if the Unions must be destroyed – a situation neither likely nor desirable – better they be destroyed, than all of us.
And, incidentally, how does the Governor of a state “fake” fiscal problems?
Better to be proactive is what I say. Why wait for unions to do to Wisconsin what they did to Detroit.
The real question here isn’t why do public sector workers have collective bargaining rights, but why do private sector workers not have them?
Republicans stood in for two years and took their filibuster proof beatings
You mean by screaming about tyranny and birth certificates and socialism? LOL.
And, incidentally, how does the Governor of a state “fake” fiscal problems?
By claiming the state is in dire straits and requires drastic measures, when it isn’t and doesn’t.
Democrats: Cutting and Running since 1973
Nice try Oliver, but Republicans were screaming about budget deficits, unprecedented spending, and job-killing health care bills.
ObamaBoom!
By claiming the state is in dire straits and requires drastic measures, when it isn’t and doesn’t.
and, of course, he can get away with it because no one else can check the State’s finances?
Nice try Oliver, but Republicans were screaming about budget deficits, unprecedented spending, and job-killing health care bills.
They only screamed about these things once a Democrat became President, and they scream about the health care bill (which doesn’t “kill jobs”, btw) because they don’t like poor people having access to care.
and, of course, he can get away with it because no one else can check the State’s finances?
Which is why he’s not getting away with it.
Then why, pray tell, did Democrat legislators run off to Illinois?
Man, some epic trolling from the children tonight.
Apparently to winguts, the morality of a particular legislative measure is directly proportional to how much it fucks over working people.
Apparently to Libtards, only public sector, card carrying union members are “working people”… certainly not all those private sector schmucks who should just shut up and keep shelling out for the retirement and medical benefits of the “real” working people. Screw Gov. Walker and his evil and insidious plan to save the taxpayers money.
You know who’s really getting fucked over? The majority of the taxpayers who happen to work in the private sector yet are expected to pay 94% of the retirement benefits and 87% of the medical benefits for state workers (under Walker’s new budget… currently, they pay even more). They can only dream about their private employers picking up that much of the tab. But private sector workers, for the most part, aren’t dependable campaign supporters of Democrats, so the hell with them.
And, incidentally, how does the Governor of a state “fake” fiscal problems?
…
Nah, too easy.
Nah. Just for SHOWING UP FOR WORK.
Nevermind WHY they didn’t show up, all that matters is that they didn’t bow down to their “betters”, right?
It seems neither Wisconsin teachers nor Wisconsin Democrats (but I repeat myself) find that an obligation worth living up to.
Of course, Wisconson Republicans don’t find it an obligation to pay teachers a decent wage
And if the Unions must be destroyed – a situation neither likely nor desirable – better they be destroyed, than all of us.
Your hubris never ceases to amaze me. Tell me, what makes you think that if unions were to disappear tomorrow, that we wouldn’t see a return of the 18 hour work day, or unsafe working conditions, or pretty much anything that the unions fought to abolish?
Even TPM concedes that making adjustments to the Union’s collective bargaining power has some value : “rolling back worker’s bargaining rights by itself saves almost nothing on its own.” ["almost nothing" = something]
This, of coruse, ignores the other questions like “benefit to who?” and “at what cost?”. But those are just minor annoyances in the quest to screw over teachers.
There’s about a 98% chance that Republicans think you make too much money.
Actually, it was Obama who lectured us that “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”.
Republicans think that you should make as much money as you’re willing to work for.
Nevermind WHY they didn’t show up
Of course not. That would raise too many uncomfortable questions about the behavior of Democratic lawmakers.
Tell me, what makes you think that if unions were to disappear tomorrow, that we wouldn’t see a return of the 18 hour work day, or unsafe working conditions, or pretty much anything that the unions fought to abolish?
Could it be because workers are protected from all of those things by existing labor laws? Let me guess, your next fear is that the GOP will try to rollback all of those protections, isn’t it? Yes, I can’t wait to see the “Return of Children to Sweatshop Labor in Unsafe Conditions Act” sponsored by Congressman Snidely Whiplash (R-Hades).
Of course, Wisconson Republicans don’t find it an obligation to pay teachers a decent wage
Well, as Gov. Christie told NJ teachers, if you feel that you’re not being compensated adequately for your education and experience, you’re free to seek employment elsewhere. That’s what we in the private-sector world have to do, after all.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what really has Progressive panties in a twist. “How will we ever elect Progressive Democrat Presidents if we don’t have most reliable campaign supporters and voting bloc at our back?”
Now before you call “bullshit”, you may want to peruse this
Wow, that’s really shocking Davey boy- the DNC fighting for progressive values!
You mean by screaming about tyranny and birth certificates and socialism? LOL.
————————
————————
Certainly today’s liberals wouldn’t act that way, huh?
“Top 15 Photos From the Wisconsin Hate Rallies You’ll Never See in Legacy Media.“
Don’t Retreat, Reload???
Death to Tyrants?
Scott Walker = Adolph Hitler?
—————-
2011 version of liberalism: Outraged by these signs before they were for them.
Amazing what getting shellacked in an election will do to change one’s perspective on what’s right and what’s wrong.
“A Democrat” … who quadrupled the deficit within the first 30 days in office, has racked up as much debt in 3 years as Bush did in 8, spent a trillion dollars to keep unemployment under 7% (only to see it rise to 10%), is bringing back stagflation and the Misery Index, and whose own advisors claim is leading us down an “unsustainable path”.
But I can’t get you get away with your original lie. Conservatives DID scream about spending. Repeatedly. Incessantly. They’re screaming even louder now because Obama is literaly spending us into oblivion.
Wrong again.
Good post, Farris. They keep repeating that lie till it becomes ingrained in their psyche like it’s a truism. Obama could double the deficit from it’s current levels and they’d still excuse it using the meme that Republicans only scream about it now because there’s a Democratic president ‘who just happens to be black’.
“Could it be because workers are protected from all of those things by existing labor laws? Let me guess, your next fear is that the GOP will try to rollback all of those protections, isn’t it? Yes, I can’t wait to see the “Return of Children to Sweatshop Labor in Unsafe Conditions Act” sponsored by Congressman Snidely Whiplash (R-Hades).”
Where do you think those laws came from?
http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/missouri-senator-wants-repeal-child-labor-laws/
Too bad our black President doesn’t believe in black ink…
Let me ask our non – racist Democratic liberal – but I repeat myself: Take everything Pres Obama has done or not done; take everything he has said or not said, since Inauguration Day. Which part of it would you expect conservatives to approve of, if he were white?
I believe that he is worse at pretending he is not liberal than Clinton. I believe that he is more clueless in foreign policy, and more out of touch with the American people than Carter. And I believe he is more interested in going down in history as FDR 2.0, regardless of what it does to the American people, than Johnson.
Now, I ask you, not if you liberals believe this true. I know you don’t. No, I ask you: Which of these comparisons do you think a conservative would deny? And, second, which one of these descriptions has anything to with race?
Broderick CrawfordWillie Stark: As I suspected, the Senator you refer to, is not in the US Senate, nor does she wish to repeal Child Labor Laws.Apparently, the composer of that headline attended the “Holy Crap ! Wait until you read this, and discover that the story has nothing to do with this” school of headline preparation, where Oliver graduated.
The author, an opinion columnist, not a reporter, says the proposed law would “repeal the requirement that 14- and-15-year-olds apply for a special permit in order to work.” and that “the state Division of Labor Standards would no longer inspect workplaces tht employ children or require them to keep special records for their youthful employees.”
So, in other words, for administrative purposes, they would be treated like adults.
Hardly like chaining David Copperfield to the label making machine, now is it?
Broderick Crawford Willie Stark
To quote your ownself –
yuk yuk
Ah, I knew this would bring out the choicest drivel from the stupid trolls. Eat it, assholes. This is, at long last, the start of ordinary people fighting back in the top-down class war. No matter how long it takes, we’re going to cram your teabags down your moronic throats.
The irony is that the trolls would stand to benefit from ordinary people fighting back. They would still complain about it I’m sure.
The New Civility, Ladies and Gentlemen!!!
Frank, the article links to the actual bill. Among other things, the bill allows children under age 14 to work, and removes the authority of the Department of Labor Standards to inspect workplaces that employ children.
There are reasons we don’t treat children as adults. One of them being they are children; another is that they aren’t adults.
Fuck civility. Teabaggers are anything but civil, and the response to them has to be in the only language they understand. Don’t like it? Bite me.
Civility is what lets demagogues run rampant over the population.
“removes the authority of the Department of Labor Standards to inspect workplaces that employ children.”
But it does not remove the authority of the Department of Labor Standards to inspect workplaces. It only does not set children apart, once they begin to work.
In New York, you MUST attend school until you are aged 16. Therefore, 13 and 14 year olds can only work when they are not in school.
Why should 13 and 14 years NOT be allowed to work?
Whatever reasons you may have to object to children working should be between you and your children. Employers should be trusted not to employ people of whatever age that can not do the job. The minimum wage applies to them all. Safety and hours standards apply to them all.
Maybe “children aren’t adults; adults aren’t children” may be a mantra for you, but it is not for me. My brother worked off the books in a deli when he was underage, and was forbidden by the owner from cutting cold cuts. He enjoyed the freedom, the work, and the money.
As a proponent of the Nanny State, I wouldn’t expect you to appreciate what that means.
La Bonne: I could say that your comment is of no value because it neither relies on fact, nor does it successfully defend any reasonable position.
OR
I could say, Fuck you and the horse that rode in on you. If brains were dynamite, you couldn’t blow your fucking nose. It would take you ten years of training to be an imbecile.
I report. You decide.
Apparently to Libtards, only public sector, card carrying union members are “working people”… certainly not all those private sector schmucks who should just shut up and keep shelling out for the retirement and medical benefits of the “real” working people.
No, we think those private sector workers are also workers who deserve to be unionized so they too, can enjoy collective bargaining, you know, the way things used to be before the Republicans destroyed the private sector unions.
And sorry, conservatives. After turning record surpluses into record deficits under Bush and not uttering a peep about it, you no longer get to complain about budget deficits. To quote the Republican Dick Cheney, “Deficits don’t matter.”
See how that works, E L? As for your “might makes right” philosophy, history is strewn with the bodies of strong men, who thought that civility was for weaklings.
And Scott Walker is in line to be the next of those “strong” men.
“not uttering a peep about it”?
You mean, in liberal circles, neither the left nor the right complained about it, because the left has thrived on deficit spending since the Roosevelt administration, and conservative opinions get no space in the (predominantly) liberal press.
Did conservatives object to Pres Bush’s deficit spending?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602742263407769.html?KEYWORDS=Compassionate+Conservatism
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/127-Bushs-Compassionate-Conservatism-Will-Undermine-the-Republicans-and-Capitalism.html
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/01/00008/
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3088
http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Betrayed-Government-Republicans-Conservative/dp/1566252857
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will020904.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml
http://townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/2009/01/23/the_tragedy_of_compassionate_conservatism
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=3
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/017wgfhc.asp?page=1
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Tea-Started-Brewing-Under-Bush.html?print=1
I’d go on, but my Carpal Tunnel is kickin’ in…
You trust the employer? Are you f’in nuts? I’m glad for your brother he had a kind and intelligent employer, but seriously. Children are very vulnerable to
exploitation. I didn’t think I had to explain why I said children aren’t adults. They are much more vulnerable to exploitation, much less able to know when something is dangerous.
And what if that deli owner wasn’t so much concerned about your brother, but concerned that if he cut himself he’d get caught for illegally employing a child? If it was legal to hire a 13 yr-old, he may have let him (rather ordered him to) use the deli-slicer.
Tim, do you seriously believe that laws passed in Jefferson City really affect what happens out in the hinterlands?
Do you think that if you get hurt on a job, whatever your age, that you have no legal recourse?
Do you think that are still places where children are locked away to work in a vacuum away from the prying eyes of the public, parents and the press, here in the United States?
C’mon! This isn’t England in the 1830′s , for cryin’ out loud!
I know you’re thinking that those Human Rights Watch stories are proof that kids are exploited. But they are also evidence that someone knows what is going on, and is trying to do something about it. And they are not government employees.
Anyone notice that the spontaneous mobs outside the Capitol are not waving firearms? Must be a liberal cause.
No, we think those private sector workers are also workers who deserve to be unionized so they too, can enjoy collective bargaining…
Yes, everyone should be in a union, even if they don’t want to.
It’s for the good of the collective, comrades!
…the way things used to be before the Republicans destroyed the private sector unions.
Only in the alternate-reality-based community Progressives inhabit did Republicans “destroy” unions. In the real world that the rest of the country lives in, they did it to themselves.
Yes, unions were instrumental in bringing us the labor laws that protect modern American workers. Thank you, unions. Ironically, by doing so they made themselves redundant and are now more of a drag and an impediment to dynamic, flexible 21st century American businesses. The only way unions are still useful and necessary today is as faithful, drone-like Democrat supporters.
Anyone notice that the spontaneous mobs outside the Capitol are
notwavingfirearms“Hitler” and threatening signs? Must be a liberal cause.FTFY
Oh, and Steve? Yeah, you can go fuck yourself too, douchebag.
No matter how long it takes, we’re going to cram your teabags down your moronic throats.
Sorry, asshole, but in Wisconsin (and coming soon to a state near you), it’s unions getting a dose of long overdue reality crammed down their throats.
Why isn’t this England of the 1830′s? Because we have laws outlawing such things.
If there were no law limiting how many hours a child could work, then what good would it do to have an NGO to expose this legal behavior?
Ooh, Dave talk big. Must be real man.
(With really, really small penis.)
CYes, I can’t wait to see the “Return of Children to Sweatshop Labor in Unsafe Conditions Act” sponsored by Congressman Snidely Whiplash (R-Hades).
Now that IS silly. They’d call it the “Freedom to Work Act”.
Well, as Gov. Christie told NJ teachers, if you feel that you’re not being compensated adequately for your education and experience, you’re free to seek employment elsewhere. That’s what we in the private-sector world have to do, after all.
And then we end up with no one teaching poor children. Of course, for Republicans, this is a feature, not a bug.
Let me ask our non – racist Democratic liberal – but I repeat myself: Take everything Pres Obama has done or not done; take everything he has said or not said, since Inauguration Day. Which part of it would you expect conservatives to approve of, if he were white?
His birth certificate.
And then we end up with no one teaching poor children.
Well if the teachers who claim to be doing it “for the children” and for their love of teaching decide to up and quit because their pay and benefits are insufficient, then we’re probably better off finding new teachers, don’t you think?
Maybe you’re under the mistaken impression that only higher paid teachers result in higher performing students.
And do you seriously think that there aren’t unemployed teachers out there in every state who wouldn’t leap at the chance to snag a teaching job, even if it meant paying an increasing share of their retirement and health benefits?
Ooh, Dave talk big. Must be real man.
(With really, really small penis.)
“Eat it, assholes. This is, at long last, the start of ordinary people fighting back in the top-down class war. No matter how long it takes, we’re going to cram your teabags down your moronic throats.”
“Fuck civility. Teabaggers are anything but civil, and the response to them has to be in the only language they understand. Don’t like it? Bite me.”
Well, I guess you would know the size of your own penis, tough guy.
Now that IS silly. They’d call it the “Freedom to Work Act”.
Good point. After all, Democrats did call Obamacare the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”.
But Professor Glen Beck said them thar protestors is a fixin’ to be in cahoots with them thar Muzzzlums!
Run and hide, Cletus!
Get mah’ gun, Maw! G
Gold and seeds! Gold and seeds!
Yeah, the unions did it to themselves. Right to work laws that invest all the power in employers had nothing to do with it.
Here’s an assignment for all the anti-union folks. Read up on the West Virginia coal patch wars of the 1920′s, and the conditions in the mines that lead up to them. If you’re pressed for time, rent and watch Matewan.
You folks want to take us back to pre-NLRB days. Perhaps you should invest a little effort in finding out what it was like back then. The unions created the widespread middle class, and the Republicans have been working to destroy that middle class ever since.
Next thing you know, Union fasshusstss will be making breast pumps!
Oh, the tyranny!
Look over there, Burn! It’s Glenn Beck!
Why should 13 and 14 years NOT be allowed to work?
All expoitation concerns aside, The U.S. job market today is not big enough for the current U.S. labor force as it is. Do we really want to be making the U.S. labor force bigger right now?
Read up on the West Virginia coal patch wars of the 1920′s, and the conditions in the mines that lead up to them.
Tell you what… if those evil big business and Wall Street fat cat lovin’ Republicans manage to be successful in undoing all of the extensive labor and workplace safety laws that we have had in place for decades and decades, I’ll be the first one joining you in the fight for the need for unions.
This is the same mentality that reliability gives us Progressive screams of “He’s a gonna outlaw abortion!!” every time we have a Republican President.
You folks want to take us back to pre-NLRB days.
See above.
All expoitation concerns aside, The U.S. job market today is not big enough for the current U.S. labor force as it is. Do we really want to be making the U.S. labor force bigger right now?
OK, so you’re all for keeping youths out of what we can all agree is a tight US labor market. So what are your thoughts on all of the illegal immigrants who are already in the market (obviously displacing US workers) or who want in?
Tea party, WI!!!!
You know, that them thar Glen Beck is a perfesser, mmmhmm, because he has one of them thar a-fancy chalkboard and he does all kinds of writin’ on it, mmmhmm, because he’s one of them smart fellers and he a-knows who is a good pickin’ real ‘murican and who is one of them thar fancy librul tray-tors is and who is a-plannin’ with them thar Muzzlumms who hate our freedumbs.
Well if the teachers who claim to be doing it “for the children” and for their love of teaching decide to up and quit because their pay and benefits are insufficient, then we’re probably better off finding new teachers, don’t you think?
Well, those teachers need to feed their families. So even if they enjoy their work, if they can’t support themselves and their loved ones, they’re going to have to find work elsewhere.
Of course not. That would raise too many uncomfortable questions about the behavior of Democratic lawmakers.
You mean like “Why is the governor hunting them like wild animals”? Yeah, that IS pretty uncomfortable
Well, those
teachers[insert the name of any other worker here] need to feed their families. So even if they enjoy their work, if they can’t support themselves and their loved ones, they’re going to have to find work elsewhere.FTFY. Remind us again why teachers (and public union workers in general) somehow require special dispensation?
You mean like “Why is the governor hunting them like wild animals”?
OMG! Has Walker unleashed Sarah Palin and her MooseEliminator2000 howitzer on the WI Dems?
Or by “hunting them like wild animals” do you mean “holding a press conference and trying to shame them into coming back and doing the job they were elected and took an oath to do” or even “see if WI law enforcement can bring them back to work like they were the truant school kids they are acting like”?
I think Stephen Green (AKA VodkaPundit) captures the differences between Teabaggerz and public union workers rather well:
Burn, you may want to look into this. Or this. Whichever is more appropriate.
You’re welcome
“We Are Either On The Side Of The Wisconsin Protesters Or We Are On The Side Of Our Country.” Rush to his dittoheads
Again, it’s different when the right protests. I mean, look at Dave’s/Vodka Pundits list, for chrissakes.
Since the Great Recession and all the fallout, was obviously the fault of overpaid teachers and not Wall Street overspeculation, we should punish the teachers.
And if you libtard teachers don’t like it, then go get a job as a Wall Street speculator, dagnammit!
Whachu talkin’ bout, Douche’n Some Cow?
I done representin’ teh real ‘murcians from them thar hartlands and we ain’ts a got all your a fancy book lernin’ skeeels, mmmhmmm, we’s a done talkin’ like mah feller patreeoughts done talkin’, mmmhmm
and I done lernt all I’s need tah know from tham fellers on the fox teevee channel, becuz they ain’t them thar fancy libruls people who is a’tellin’ them fibs about me and mah feller teabaggerz
Whachu talkin’ bout, Douche’n Some Cow?
I think it’s the second link you’ll need.
And if you libtard teachers don’t like it, then go get a job as a Wall Street speculator, dagnammit!
And timmy’s officially got nothing.
…was obviously the fault of overpaid teachers and not Wall Street overspeculation…
As I noted on another post, maybe you should educate yourself about which political party all those “Wall Street speculators” are supporting these days with their ill-gotten gains.
My “nothing” includes having once committed the political error of “integrity while doing my job” in corporate America, which unfortunately for me, ruffled the feathers of a corporate powerbroker, from whom I had no recourse.
I thought the “Hope and Change” or “Change Is Coming” was all about relieving the common voters’ belief that they were becoming increasingly powerless in America.
Apparently DISC agrees and disagrees all at the same time?
I’m sorry to hear that, timmy… I’m sure that no one else in history has ever pissed off their boss (or their bosses’ boss) by doing the right thing for the customer or for the company and then unfairly paid a price for it. You must be the first.
Welcome to the world of non-union workers. What you described is, unfortunately, one of the downsides. On the other hand, one of the upsides is that your company has a better chance of surviving and growing (and you staying gainfully employed). And if you’re a top performer, your chances of making more money and/or getting promoted than the employees who are content to just do the minimum work required and punch out promptly are much, much greater. So you’ve got that too.
However, if you prefer to do your job with the soothing arms of a union offical around your shoulders, making sure that your boss has a difficult if not impossible time firing you even if you happen to be the worst worker in the company, while also ensuring that you get the same bonus and/or raise that everyone else is getting because you DESERVE it, then a union job just might be for you.
I thought the “Hope and Change” or “Change Is Coming” was all about relieving the common voters’ belief that they were becoming increasingly powerless in America.
No, silly… that’s what the Tea Party is all about. I can understand the confusion, though. “Hope and Change” sounded good but it turned out to be a whole of the former and not much of the latter.
You must be the first.
And I must therefore also be completely unaware of why unions came about?
if you’re a top performer, your chances of making more money and/or getting promoted than the employees who are content to just do the minimum work required and punch out promptly are much, much greater
Theoretically, but not in reality. Every company has corruption, but because of global competitive pressures most of the local companies in my area have actually become more corrupt. Meaning, corrupt power players have become more likely to surround themselves with like minded others to ensure their own survival. If the company sinks, again, they go to work for those like minded others.
To put it as simply as possible, I side with those who can honestly check and balance concentrations of power. And yes, I am fully aware that powerful unions can represent corrupt concentrations of power quite well.
No, silly…
You’re just being black and white silly here. You’re saying it’s physically impossible for say, the powerful Koch Brothers to use the “Tea Party” to further their own ends, exclusively?
FTFY. Remind us again why teachers (and public union workers in general) somehow require special dispensation?
They don’t. They have the right to unionize and demand better working conditions just like anyone in the private sector.
OMG! Has Walker unleashed Sarah Palin and her MooseEliminator2000 howitzer on the WI Dems?
No, just state troopers.
Translation: It’s Ok for Teabaggers to protest because they don’t do any work that matters.
Translation: “I believe that teachers only party and drink margaritas when they’re not in school, and that $46k a year is “cushy”.
Anyone notice that the spontaneous mobs outside the Capitol are
notwavingfirearms“Hitler” and threatening signs? Must be a liberal cause.Dave, are you saying you would PREFER that they were waving weapons instead of signs? Because you made my point for me.
All. They. Are. Waving. Are. Signs.
No weapons, no talk of armed revolution. People engaging in their constitutional rights as spelled out in the First Amendment:
Surely you support the Constitution and the rights enumerated therein?
And the Obama=Hitler theme has already been beaten to death by the Teabaggers. The Google image search found hundreds more like this one.
By joining a union, aren’t public employees “…peaceably assembl[ing] to petition the government for a redress of grievances?”
Some of the resident cons apparently don’t agree that public employees have the same rights to “peaceably assemble” as private sector employees do, a right that also entitles them to join a union, but I would like an explanation as to why not.
How do conservatives suggest that employees force employers to provide decent working conditions and wages if the employees do not have right to join unions? The only means available to the work force to use against employers is to refuse to work. Is there another means for employees to stand up to big companies that conservatives support and that I am unaware of?
Frank: ["almost nothing" = something]
Holy Christ.
So OK with you, Frank, if we, say, cut your medical benefits to almost nothing?
And if the Unions must be destroyed – a situation neither likely nor desirable – better they be destroyed, than all of us.
Basic conservative credo: I got mine, OK with me if you lose yours.
Ol Froth: and they scream about the health care bill (which doesn’t “kill jobs”, btw) because they don’t like poor people having access to care.
I think it’s more they scream about the health care bill (or about anything for that matter) so they have a boogie man to scare their base with.
OK, so you’re all for keeping youths out of what we can all agree is a tight US labor market. So what are your thoughts on all of the illegal immigrants who are already in the market (obviously displacing US workers) or who want in?
My thought is I wish we didn’t have illegal immigrants crowding out US workers but we do. I do not think mass deportation is realistic. My position is secure the borders first and formost to stop the influx. Tell those that are here they can stay with special status. They can’t vote but they pay taxes. They will pay a fine for the crime they committed. And if their wife and kids are still in their country of origin, tough titty said the kitty. They can’t come without getting in line at the immigration office. Whoever doesn’t like those terms, don’t let the border fence hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
All that said I still wouldn’t want to make it worse by opening up the labor market to under 16.
My position is secure the borders first and formost to stop the influx.
Wow, that border fence, that’ll keep them out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjKBjM1ngw
Wow, that border fence, that’ll keep them out!
They’d be secure if they were lined with barbed wire, electrified, and flanked by land mines. That’s just Common Sense(TM).
Wow, that border fence, that’ll keep them out!
Ok yes the fence is stupid. And putting enough border patrol in place to stop it is unrealistic. So maybe not so much secure the border but take away the incentive to come by cracking down on employers and cutting off freebies. Just do SOMETHING.
But alas as long as both sides can use it as campaign ammo then I suspect more of the same is in order.
Wont matter Scooter, the problem here is that Mexico and the central American countries don’t have anything approximating our middle class. These workers can make far more in the US then they can by staying home. Until those economies develop enough to encourage workers to stay put, we’ll continue to see an influx of workers headed north.
The alternative is to degrade our economy to second and third world standards, which is the route our Galtian overlords have chosen.
When unemployed white guys who were born in the United States start lining up to pick strawberries. push a wheelbarrow, and swamp out horse manure, the “illegal problem” will be solved. Those jobs have always been there and always will, and it seems that only one class of people chooses to accept them.
Until that time, if you care to eat anything grown or raised in the United States, if you care to enter a building constructed in California in the last 20 years, if you even like going to the track and betting on the ponies, get used to “undocumented” Hispanic labor.
And then there is this:
despite the data showing lower national esteem overall for unions, Americans still say that they’re generally inclined to side with labor groups in disputes with state or local governments.
Asked whose side they would generally favor in a conflict between unions and state or local governments, 44 percent of respondents told Pew that they would support the labor group while 38 percent picked the government.
According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, union membership has declined from 20 percent of all wage and salary workers in 1983 – the first year that the bureau collected comparable statistics – to just under 12 percent today.
Public sector workers are much more likely to belong to a union than those who work in private industry. Over 42 percent of local government employees – many of them teachers, firefighters, and police officers – say they are members of a union, while under seven percent of private sector workers are members of a labor organization.
Union membership is highest among African Americans and workers 55-64 years old. Less than 5 percent of workers under 24 are members of a union.
I’d argue that the reason that less than 5% of workers under 24 are union members is due to them being in a position where they cannot practically choose to belong to a union.
.
As a kid growing up in northern states, the only undocumented workers I was ever aware of worked harvesting crops.
And if a kid wanted to make some money in the summer they could go work on farms, flip burgers, mow lawns, or wash dishes.
But today most of those jobs are taken up by undocumented workers – not to mention stocking shelves, most landscaping, much restaurant, most construction, etc… I have not gone to a Home Depot in the last 5 years without driving past 5 to 30 Hispanics waving at me. I go to my local Filipino or Japanese seafood market and who’s doing the cooking? Mexicans. My friend the landscape design/build architect complains he’s being forced out by undocumented worker companies.
I don’t think it’s that there are undocumented workers in America, but that the ‘line of illegal tolerance’ keeps on moving.
An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that. There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can’t be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter. … it seems to me that Governor Scott Walker’s basic requests are modest ones–asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do. He is also trying to limit the unions’ abilities to negotiate work rules–and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. … The negotiation of such contracts were acts of collusion rather than of mediation. Government officials were, in effect, bribing their most activist constituents.
That notorious conservative , Joe Klien, in the famously conservative Time magazine.
BTW, you can cut my medical benefits to “almost nothing”, if you cut what I pay for them to almost nothing, considering those teachers get better benefits than I do for nothing – no cost to them, no deduction – nuttin’ …
But keep mentioning my benefits as if you’re going to trap me in a contradiction, because, after all, no one has ever tried that on me before, so I can’t possibly be prepared with an answer.
Oh. My. God.
How absolutely priceless.
After I brought
…the very best you can come up with is this?
I mean, Oliver, are you serious? I understand that you are a highly talented, well-compensated multimedia communications expert worthy of notice from the highest levels of government (yeah, right), but do you have so little respect for yourself, your blog, your bosses and your political puppet-masters that this is all you have? A bit of snarky falsehood that you’ve been paid to repeat for so long that it must have magically transfoemd into truth?
What I find even more entertaining are the points that you chose not to respond to.
Was this just the only low-hanging fruit, the one target that was basic enough that you had a catalogued response to pull out, suitable to your intellect?
Or is it because everything else I said is true, that it struck straight to the heart, and that there can be no reasonable response save capitulation?
If there was ever a need for proof that you really, really suck at this game, Oliver, I can objectively say you have met and surpassed that burden.
Congratulations.
Wow. Bet you could almost write for Dennis Miller.
The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that.
But just 4 months ago you were whining about how Democrats were so mean because they weren’t giving into every single Republican demand. And that Obama was “arrogant” for saying that he won the election.
considering those teachers get better benefits than I do for nothing – no cost to them, no deduction – nuttin’ …
Frank, they WORK. They teach children. That’s not “nothing”.
no cost to them, no deduction – nuttin’ = getting benefits for nothing. I know you’re uneducated, and I blame that on America’s totally useless educational system – but don’t brag about it.
Oh, and Zython , that whole statement was not written by me.
Once again, he poises to strike, he strikes – and misses !!
Monstrous FAIL, gameboy.
I still can’t get a conservative to respond to my request that they tell us the conservative-approved means for employees to bargain with employers.
It must be because, “Shut UP!”
Repack , you tell me the difference a “peaceful assembly” and an unlawful strike ( as in “strike forbidden by law”) and I’ll tell you a teacher’s union can negotiate salary, benefits and working conditions without a union.
Hint: See how Japanese corporations operate in America.
So, let me see if I have this right. If public sector workers have good benefits, and private sector workers have shitty benefits, it’s “fucking over” taxpayers to maintain those benefits, and there’s not even a shred of concern for why private sector benefits are so shitty.
Republicans: not happy until *everyone’s* fucked over.
getting benefits for nothing
Wrong. Those benefits are part of the compensation package agreed to when the worker began their employment with the employer. For the employer to change the terms of the agreement without negotiation or compensation amounts to a breach of contract.
Wow, look who sadly believes he’s worthy of a response!
I know your pride is meaningful to you, but there’s a reason your particular tripe is referred to as “mental masturbation”.
And it’s official. Oliver’s “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Faking Fiscal Problems To Bust Unions” post is a complete lie.
How unsurprising.
Republicans: not happy until *everyone’s* fucked over.
Democrats: only happy if the right people (i.e. non-union workers, people who don’t support progressive “ideals”, teabaggers, “the rich”, etc.) are fucked over.
Dave, are you saying you would PREFER that they were waving weapons instead of signs? Because you made my point for me.
No, idiot. I’m not.
Oh and by the way, maybe you can provide some examples of teabaggerz or other right wing hate groups “waving around firearms” at a protest. Sorry, but people walking around with unloaded and holstered or slung weapons do not meet the definition of “waving around”.
In a more perfect world we’d leave both Wall Street billionaires and teachers alone.
And roads and bridges would grow on trees.
They don’t. They have the right to unionize and demand better working conditions just like anyone in the private sector.
Yes they do. And the last time I checked, no one was trying to take away their right to do either of those things.
They can demand whatever they want. But that doesn’t mean they are entitled to get it or should expect to get it.
And the case of the WI teachers, they’re not “demanding better working conditions”, they’re demanding their benefits remain untouched. Which Gov Adolf Walker-Mubarak is saying that the state can’t afford.
All. They. Are. Waving. Are. Signs.
… some of which are advocating for violence against the duly elected governor of WI, as I linked to.
Signs are only bad and dangerous and a window into a person’s soul when they are being held by evil right wingerz or teabaggerz. When held by noble progressives, regardless of what they say, they are JUST SIGNS. Got it.
Oh, and Zython , that whole statement was not written by me.
So you don’t agree with it?
Yes they do. And the last time I checked, no one was trying to take away their right to do either of those things.
Well, except Scott Walker.
And the case of the WI teachers, they’re not “demanding better working conditions”, they’re demanding their benefits remain untouched.
So they’re demanding that their working conditions aren’t worsened. Big difference.
Signs are only bad and dangerous and a window into a person’s soul when they are being held by evil right wingerz or teabaggerz. When held by noble progressives, regardless of what they say, they are JUST SIGNS. Got it.
Yet, why do people from the land of “personal responsibility” and “smaller government” have to prove that they are at least as bad as those who want more public checks and balances?
If I’m being too subtle, I’ll try again.
Smaller government only works with better behaved citizenry. Theoretically, conservatives expect liberals to be less moral and polite than they are. Yet conservatives behave as badly or worse. What gives?
Well, except Scott Walker.
Wrong. What Gov Walker is trying to do is to take retirement and health benefits out of the collective bargaining process. He’s not stopping teachers from either unionizing or demanding better working conditions.
So they’re demanding that their working conditions aren’t worsened. Big difference.
You seem confused by the concept of “working conditions”. Speciifically, they are “The conditions in which an individual or staff works, including but not limited to such things as amenities, physical environment, stress and noise levels, degree of safety or danger, and the like”.
Your pay and benefits (which are the subject of the WI protests) are the compensation you receive for your work, not your “working conditions”. Is this so difficult to understand?
And the last time I checked, no one was trying to take away their right to do either of those things.
No, Walker is just trying to impose so many restrictions and limitations that the so-called “right” that remains will be meaningless.
Yet conservatives behave as badly or worse
You might want to start by proving this first. And the behavior exhibited by the protesting WI teachers makes that a lot harder to do.
And by the way, your statement above does nothing to address the “signs held by the right = dangerous rhetoric” vs. “signs held by progressives = just signs” double standard I pointed out.
Dave, you know you can’t spell Oliver without L-I-E.
No, Walker is just trying to impose so many restrictions and limitations that the so-called “right” that remains will be meaningless.
Let’s look at the “many restrictions and limitations” that Walker is trying to impose:
1. Restrict negotiations with non-law-enforcement unions to wages only (retirement and health benefits are set by the state and not negotiated)
2. Require recertification votes for the union each year
3. Make Wisconsin a right-to-work state, which means workplaces are no longer “closed shops” forcing workers to join, and it ends automatic deduction of union dues from paychecks and instead makes them voluntary
These changes put unions in the position of having to justify their continued representation, but it hardly “outlaws” them or makes them meaningless.
Or do you think that workers should be forced to join unions?
By joining a union, aren’t public employees “…peaceably assembl[ing] to petition the government for a redress of grievances?”
That’s an interesting interpretation of “peacefully assembling”.
Some of the resident cons apparently don’t agree that public employees have the same rights to “peaceably assemble” as private sector employees do, a right that also entitles them to join a union, but I would like an explanation as to why not.
Wrong yet again, Repack. Public employees have just as much right to “peaceably assemble” as private sector employees do. You’re the one making the argument that “the right to peaceably assemble” equals “the right to form a union”.
Fortunately, however, we do have laws on the books (enforced by the NLRB) that allow workers to form a union as long as they have met all of the requirements.
None of those laws are being threatened by Gov. Walker’s actions, as far as I can tell.
I still can’t get a conservative to respond to my request that they tell us the conservative-approved means for employees to bargain with employers.
Follow the existing laws that cover unionization. Satisfied?
And just, you know, by the way… I find it curious that the media doesn’t seem too concerned with the demographic breakdown of the union protesters.
From all the pictures I’ve seen, it’s very clear that they are predominately… something… but without the media to tell me what that something is, how can I be sure?
That’s an interesting interpretation of “peacefully assembling”.
The Constitution says “peaceably,” so I presume you meant the same thing. As along as the assembly does not include violence, where do you disagree with the example? And what difference would it make to you if people want to assemble “peaceably” and don’t invite you?
I find it curious that the media doesn’t seem too concerned with the demographic breakdown of the union protesters.
Are there too many white people, or too many non-white people in the crowd for your taste? Is the crowd “too young” or “too old” in your opinion? What difference would the “demographics” make to you or anyone else who is not racist or age-ist?
You’re the one making the argument that “the right to peaceably assemble” equals “the right to form a union”.
Not me. The Supreme Court. Do you agree with them or not?
Follow the existing laws that cover unionization. Satisfied?
That would be “the law of the land.” Freedom of speech and association are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, according to the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama, 1958. (See above.) Good enough for me, but apparently not for Governor Walker.
Wrong. What Gov Walker is trying to do is to take retirement and health benefits out of the collective bargaining process. He’s not stopping teachers from either unionizing or demanding better working conditions.
Alright, fine, let me rephrase that.
Fucking happy now?
Oh, and it seems that Walker really is only interested in screwing unions.
Well, I don’t know what to think, Repack, because the media isn’t telling me what to think.
If I’m going to be a good little liberal and toe the party line, I need the Media (because they Matter) to tell me what to think.
Without them, every good little liberal sheep is lost. And you know, I just find it a bit curious that they won’t tell me how many black people they don’t see. (Perhaps it’s simply the conspicuous absence of the Coming King of CurrentTV, Kith Olbermann – I know he would have taken care of me. Unfortunately he’s been sent up the river to Media Jail.)
They have seemed awfully eager to point out things like that in the past. It made it so easy to know when to be righteously outraged, you see. You remember all that, don’t you? Sure you do.
It’s interesting that you opine that anyone who would find such statistics newsworthy must be racist or age-ist; because it certainly made A LOT OF DIFFERENCE to liberals in the media for the past two years. Tell me, does that make THEM racist or age-ist? Your statement suggests strongly that your opinion is “yes.”
But it’s different now. The media isn’t giving me my demographic outrage statistic of the day, and frankly, I need my fix of righteous liberal outrage.
It’s not fair, because they owe me my fix.
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
~ George Meany — former President of the AFL-CIO — in 1955.
When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. FDR considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”
“in terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen.”
~ AFL – CIO Executive Council , 1959
And, Frank, what would be the AFL-CIOs position on Walker’s plans here in 2011?
Any idea? Wanna take a guess?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuJd0w9VlaY&feature=player_embedded
Oh, and Frank, for the record, let’s look at the entirety of FDRs 1937 letter to Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees, shall we:
Way to go, Fafaroo ! Very clever!!
Let me try that bold tag thingy:
Boy, howdy ! You sure showed me a thing or two!
Oh, and thanks for the link!
I was thinking of a really spectacular ending for this comment, but I’ll forgo that, and leave it to you guess what I was going to say. After all, you’re so good at that..
TTFN
Fucking happy now?
Of course you aren’t…
…and leave it to you guess what I was going to say.
I really can’t, Frank. Because FDR supported and applauded the existence of public employee unions. Walker is trying to destroy them.
So I have no idea how or why you thought you could use FDR to defend Walker.
I am not, however, surprised that you had no clue what the rest of FDRs letter said.
I just find it a bit curious that they won’t tell me how many black people they don’t see.
Thanks for clarifying that confused jumble into one sentence, but you left out the important datum.
Why do the demographics of the crowd matter to you?
Because they mattered so much to you and yours last summer. And now the media won’t talk about it.
I just wonder why.
(Actually I don’t…I pretty sure I know the answer, and it’s not flattering to the media, the teachers’ unions, or the Democrats in general.)
You know, Dave, I find it interesting that you post so frequently, and lie so frequently. The teachers are not demanding that their benefits be left untouched. That’s out there in the public record, yet you insist on lying about it.
Is that your strategy? Repeat lies over and over, and hope people don’t know better, and listen to you?
I am not, however, surprised that you had no clue what the rest of FDRs letter said.
Apparently, neither did you. The person who quoted apparently did a much better of capturing its context, than you did. You can pretend you didn’t read all the sentences pertaining to FDR’s disapproval of government union strikes, if you want.
Frank, any time you want to reveal where you picked your talking points, feel free. The letter includes FDRs support for public employee unions, his support for collective bargaining with limitations, and his opposition to strikes as a tool for public emPloyee unions. Apparently, your source saw fit to quote only a snippet of the third point.
Interestingly, that’s the least relevant point in this instance as none of the unions in WI Unser fire have called a strike, which would be against the law.
The relevant part of FDRs letter is his unqualified support of the right for public employees to organize to protect their wages, benefits, health and safety etc. That’s the right that Walker is trying to undermine, a move that FDR clearly would have opposed based on the letter your source so selectively quoted from.
So by all means, Frank, reveal your source.
Okay, Frank, let me do your work for you, again. It would appear that you clipped, verbatim, without credit, three quotes from a NY Times op ed by James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation. We’ll leave aside your obvious plagiarism of Sherk’s own word in one instance and go straight to Sherk’s central thesis:
What’s absurd is this statement and the obvious lie that Sherk has to perpetrate in order to make this claim and enslist FDRs letter, cited above, in its support.
First off, Sherk quotes FDR from a letter he wrote in 1937 to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in which FDR himself says that federal employee unions “have a logical place in Government affairs.” That’s “logical place,” Frank, not “absurd.”
Even more to the point, the NFFE is still around which makes it, according to its website 93 years old:
So the NFFE was actually founded as an organization under the auspices of the AFL, a major force in the American labor movement, as Sherk should know, and it remained associated with the AFL for its first 14 years. How does that jibe with Sherk’s assertion that when it came to government unions, “the labor movement once thought the idea absurd”? In fact, the first and longest running government union was founded around the same time and in concert with the birth of the American labor union in the 1910s.
Even more, when the NFFE split from the AFL in 1931 over internal policy differences, did the AFL say “good riddance” to that “absurd” appendage? No. The AFL went ahead and started its own government union:
The AFGE, which is also still around, has been affiliated with the AFL and then the AFL-CIO, since it was founded some two decades before the 1950s when Sherk claims the American labor movement suddenly changed its mind about government labor unions.
So, Frank, you and Sherk would have us believe that “the labor movement” had always thought the idea of a government union was “absurd” despite the clear evidence that this is not the case. Something is obviously missing from Sherk’s op ed, much more than simply his selective quoting of FDRs letter.
But why does Sherk feel the need to lie in order to make his case? What greater cause might he be serving? As he says:
fafaroo, this is something you do quite often: You make the argument about what you want it to be about, and then create a paradigm that goes something like this: I want to argue about “A” because I believe X to be true about “A”. If you don’t want to argue about “A”, for whatever reason, then I must be right about “A”.
Well, that is not correct.
I choose not to argue about for two reasons: 1) I believe in the truth of the assertion that civil service unions should be treated differently from other unions, and 2) I believe that Sherk makes a great case for the idea that even union leaders and union sympathizers agree.
There is nothing left to argue.
You are merely restating your previous case. You even tried to pull off some other crap, by accusing me of plagiarism, despite the fact that I correctly quoted the people named, and named them. (For your information, my source was not the NY Times, it was the A E I website, so there were some slight differences in the text you quoted.
This is all the time I am going to waste on proving you were right about something that is irrelevant to the point I was making.
2) I believe that Sherk makes a great case for the idea that even union leaders and union sympathizers agree. There is nothing left to argue.
But, Frank, Sherk doesn’t make a “great case” unless, of course, you count outright lying or complete ignorance as valid rhetorical devices. Sherk is either lying or entirely ignorant of the labor movement’s history to make the central claim he makes.
If your point rests on Sherk’s analysis, and it does entirely, you have no valid point to make at all because Sherk’s analysis is so woefully flawed as to raise serious questions about his honesty.
Oh and, Frank…
…despite the fact that I correctly quoted the people named, and named them.
You wrote:
Only three words in that passage belong to FDR. The rest belong to Sherk. Verbatim. You presented Sherk’s words without quotes and without citation. That’s plagiarism. A minor offense in this case, to be sure, but exemplary of the lazy, know-nothing cut-and-paste thinking that pervades your comments.
An example of cut and paste thinking
(Demographics) Because they mattered so much to you and yours last summer. And now the media won’t talk about it.
Can you please provide me with my own statements about crowd demographics that you have taken exception to? I don’t speak for “the media,” which I obviously despise for their stupidity, or “liberals” in general since I disagree with many of them on different issues, but I do speak for myself. If I posted an opinion on crowd demographics that is contrary to yours, what was it?
If I didn’t opine on that subject, why are you waving it in my face?
Concern troll is concerned. Concern troll thinks the union protests look awfully, you know, *white*. And this is terrible, considering the demographics.
An example of cut and paste thinking..
Frank, you cut and pasted quotes out of context, even plagiarizing some portions because you couldn’t even bothered to re-write Sherk’s paraphrase of FDR or to even give him credit as the source of the quote.
I, on the other hand, read your comment, tracked down the source, read it and wen seeking verification. I found the original context of the FDR quotes and did a little research into the history of public employee unions in this country.
In both cases, it’s clear that Sherk was grossly distorting the truth in order to push his thesis. I’ve presented you the evidence.
But you’re still defending Sherk, and not by presenting your own evidence or research to back up Sherk’s claims. No. You’re simply repeating Sherk’s original claims over and over and choosing to ignore the evidence that proves him wrong.
You have absolutely nothing to say on the subject of public employee unions beyond the talking points spoon fed you by conservative hacks who know you don’t care that you’re being lied to.
Again, this is why it’s perfectly appropriate to call you an idiot.
And that is why this is my final comment to you , ever.
Watchit Frank. Turning the other cheek encourages slap-slappy cheek turning.
I don’t know if ignorance is bliss, but ignoring arrogant pricks certainly is.
Burn, follow the link associated with my name, and see what I do for fun — and therapy…
I request The Prodigy: Smack my bitch up.
Tomorrow night
And that is why this is my final comment to you , ever.
Really? The comment on free education is what finally pushed you over the edge?
I thought it would have been the comment in which I point out that, for all your screeching against the government, you haven’t spent a day of your adult life not on the government payroll or a federal entitlement program.
Does anyone really believe that?
E L Why don’t you poll all the members ? You can get back to me with the results…
[...] Scott Walker, Wisconsin governor, step up to the plate and try to destroy unions for completely make believe reasons. Like Ed Garner, Scott Walker owes his success to the uber wealthy, in this case, the Koch [...]