The Political Discussion Thread

[Col.Foley]

Dude, for one thing you need to learn to see sarcasm, even when it isn't tagged. I mean, I really didn't think it was that subtle. If you really think I was dead serious about flogging, then... just, whoa. Dude.

As for the rest, two things: the Constitution/Bill of Rights thing I mentioned pertains to free speech and assembly, not to collective bargaining. Walker has been on record since the get-go of this as not wanting to honor the right of protesters to protest, when it is clearly their right to do so. Secondly, unions are paid for by their members' dues, not by state budgets.

Well if I had said that or anyone on this side of the aisle had said that, well....we would not get the benefit of the doubt. But even if you were joking its not something that I especially like especially in this context.

But the unions in question mainly here are paid for by the State. SO the tax payers and state bugets do infact pay their benefits. Considering protests have happened every single day since this whole thing has started, and has spread to other states in the union, I question this claim a lot. Maybe he was just being sarcastic?

[Naonak]

Especially on the religious groups. Since they are specifically protected under the first Amendment, they have rights too.

Yeah, they have rights, but not the right to force other people to live by their beliefs.

Aaand we're back on the religion thing...

[Col.Foley]

Yeah, they have rights, but not the right to force other people to live by their beliefs.

Aaand we're back on the religion thing...

You do not have that right either though. Its amazing, they do not have that right! But we do!

[SF_and_Coffee]

Well if I had said that or anyone on this side of the aisle had said that, well....we would not get the benefit of the doubt. But even if you were joking its not something that I especially like especially in this context.

So now you're saying you can read my mind, and know who and or what I would give the benefit of the doubt to? Good grief, why even bother to debate anything with anyone then, when you already know all the answers?

But the unions in question mainly here are paid for by the State. SO the tax payers and state bugets do infact pay their benefits. Considering protests have happened every single day since this whole thing has started, and has spread to other states in the union, I question this claim a lot. Maybe he was just being sarcastic?

Unions are paid for by union dues, not state funding. If the union happens to be of auto workers, retail workers, state employees, or anyone else, oh well. They still have the right to collective bargaining. Taking that right away is a step backward toward the excesses of the Gilded Age of Robber Barons, which I really don't think is in the best interests of the United States as a whole. There are plenty of ways to balance budgets that don't involve cutting off noses to spite faces.

[Col.Foley]

So now you're saying you can read my mind, and know who and or what I would give the benefit of the doubt to? Good grief, why even bother to debate anything with anyone then, when you already know all the answers?


Unions are paid for by union dues, not state funding. If the union happens to be of auto workers, retail workers, state employees, or anyone else, oh well. They still have the right to collective bargaining. Taking that right away is a step backward toward the excesses of the Gilded Age of Robber Barons, which I really don't think is in the best interests of the United States as a whole. There are plenty of ways to balance budgets that don't involve cutting off noses to spite faces.

Sorry that was shameful of me I sort of knew that was a dark path to go onto before I started. .

These unions are specifically public unions. They work for the States and local Governments. Therefor they get paid for by the state and local Governments. Therefor the benefits and the monies and the pay that they get, and the ability to Collectively bargain, is put on the State's finances and is leading to massive budget shortfalls in most of the fifty states.

The fact of the matter is unions are too powerful, and the ability to Collectively Bargain is slowly starting to seem like a joke. No I do not really want to go back to the 'Gilded Age' but I do not want the Unions to continue to have the power that they do, and to be as entrenched as they are, which is ruining the country and buisness and our ability to compete in the world. The fact of the matter is that people gripe all the time about the power and the excesses of Big Buisness, and Government subsidies (which you should be) I rarely hear a peep out of anyone, especially the vocalest critics of 'corporations' complain about the excess and the over bearing power of the unions. Especially considering the 'right' to Collectively Bargain is a right that I cannot say that I want. I do not want to be paid as much as some guy who does only half the work I do, texts on his phone instead of working and does not focus on his job. And on the same token I do not expect to be paid the same amount as someone else who does more work, is the Employee of the Month, and is generally a much smarter, stronger, better worker then I am. And on top of that all I want to represent ME when I have the abillity to do so to management if I feel I am being portrayed unfairly.

Oh which brings up something else, all these Unions are complaining that they are loosing their collective bargain in Wisconsin and in other states while they are complaining for the 'Right to Work' leglislation that is being propesed in other states. Which while I think the name of it is stupid never the less one should be able to work for a company without being union and without being forced into it. I will work for no company or in no state that forces me to do something that I do not want to do.

[Naonak]

You do not have that right either though. Its amazing, they do not have that right! But we do!

Well, no, of course not. That's barely even a relevant point, it's not like I, or anybody else, want to go around forcing abortions on people. If they don't want to get abortions, fine, but they shouldn't be able stop other people.

[Col.Foley]

Well, no, of course not. That's barely even a relevant point, it's not like I, or anybody else, want to go around forcing abortions on people. If they don't want to get abortions, fine, but they shouldn't be able stop other people.

That was not juts about abortion. That was about everything. There are those in this thread ( You should know who you are) who have said that they have world view X, so you automatically be forced into it. Because that world view is wise and benevolant and yours is wrong and religious etc etc.

But as for abortion if you honestly believed that fetus's were human life or potential human life, if you believed it to be murder, would you not try and protect their life. Regardless of privacy rights. Would you not try and do everyting in your power to protect their rights. Except for, of course, violating the rights of others. And would you not consider the privacy rights to be silly? Would one have the right to murder someone privatley in the comfort and security of their own home?

[SF_and_Coffee]

Sorry that was shameful of me I sort of knew that was a dark path to go onto before I started. .

Well, I'm glad you acknowledge that. Let's leave it and move on.

These unions are specifically public unions. They work for the States and local Governments. Therefor they get paid for by the state and local Governments. Therefor the benefits and the monies and the pay that they get, and the ability to Collectively bargain, is put on the State's finances and is leading to massive budget shortfalls in most of the fifty states.

The unions themselves are not paid for by the government. The wages and benefits that the unionized workers receive are paid for by the government. The unions themselves are paid for by the dues of their members. Two very different things. One must be careful, in discussions of this nature, to say what one actually means.

Unions of non-public employees stand to be affected by this situation too, so to pretend that ONLY public employees' unions are at issue here is disingenuous at best. I won't address what it might be at worst, because I have no desire to cast aspersions, or make accusations that could turn out to be untrue. Shorter me: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Having said that, in a case of public employees, the government is the employer. Why should public employees have any less of an opportunity or right to bargain in a collective manner for their working conditions, their pay, and their benefits than any other employees? If a government, as an employer, wishes to balance its budget, why should it do so on the backs of those who provide its necessary services? Ditto for any other employer, really. Employers too often want as much as they can get from an employee, for as little return as they can give to that employee, and that is precisely WHY unions came into being.

Note that I am not saying no union every asked for (or even got) perhaps a little too much. Going overboard seems to be an unavoidable facet of the human condition, both individually and collectively. However, the solution is not to swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction in a futile attempt at correction. All that does is set the next swing to go even farther. Overcorrection is rarely a correction at all; instead, it merely exchanges one problem for another.

The fact of the matter is unions are too powerful, and the ability to Collectively Bargain is slowly starting to seem like a joke.

Before I attempt to address this statement specifically, I would like to see it clarified and expanded upon, so that I will know precisely what you mean by it.

No I do not really want to go back to the 'Gilded Age' but I do not want the Unions to continue to have the power that they do, and to be as entrenched as they are, which is ruining the country and buisness and our ability to compete in the world.

Okay, this I think I can address as is. 1) Who is the major entity with which the government of Wisconsin (or Ohio, or any other state in the US) must compete? 2) The ability of US businesses to compete in the world is not a product of unionization, except in cases where the competitors are all or nearly all located in third-world nations where workers are paid less than a dollar an hour and work in sweatshop conditions. The only way to compete economically with those places is to sink to their level, and by doing that we would cease to be a nation that stood for anything other than exploitation. Does the phrase "race to the bottom" ring a bell? The reason we have trouble competing with the non-third-world is due to the fact that we no longer produce the best and the brightest in terms of people, ideas, innovation, or much of anything else. We don't even have a well-educated workforce these days, because people tend not to buy into the concept of education. It seems that most Americans would rather eat Cheetos and watch The Biggest Loser than actually learn anything.

The fact of the matter is that people gripe all the time about the power and the excesses of Big Buisness, and Government subsidies (which you should be)

Some government subsidies make sense. Others, such as paying farmers not to grow crops, are ridiculous and ought to be outlawed.

I rarely hear a peep out of anyone, especially the vocalest critics of 'corporations' complain about the excess and the over bearing power of the unions.

Group this with the earlier element on which I requested clarification, please.

Especially considering the 'right' to Collectively Bargain is a right that I cannot say that I want. I do not want to be paid as much as some guy who does only half the work I do, texts on his phone instead of working and does not focus on his job. And on the same token I do not expect to be paid the same amount as someone else who does more work, is the Employee of the Month, and is generally a much smarter, stronger, better worker then I am. And on top of that all I want to represent ME when I have the abillity to do so to management if I feel I am being portrayed unfairly.

You have a woeful misunderstanding of what collective bargaining is for or about. I've never been a member of a union in my life, but I've spent quite a lot of the past three decades -- I got my first job in January of 1983 -- being paid the same or less than people who slack off and screw around on the job. It has nothing to do with unions, believe me. At the same time, representing myself to management when I felt there was a problem as as often as not resulted in my being let go for daring to rock anyone's boat. At least when one has union representation, one does not run that sort of risk. And that's why there are unions.

Oh which brings up something else, all these Unions are complaining that they are loosing their collective bargain in Wisconsin and in other states while they are complaining for the 'Right to Work' leglislation that is being propesed in other states.

Again, please clarify. I know what "Right to Work" is (and agree that it is a stupid name). What exactly are you claiming the unions are complaining about in regard to it, specific to this discussion?

Which while I think the name of it is stupid never the less one should be able to work for a company without being union and without being forced into it. I will work for no company or in no state that forces me to do something that I do not want to do.

If a shop is Union, and the employer has agreed to have a union shop, then the union can stipulate that you must join in order to work there. If you don't want to do it, then you go work for someplace else that isn't a union shop. You have that freedom.

[Joachim]

Especially on the religious groups. Since they are specifically protected under the first Amendment, they have rights too.

they have personal rights; abortion is a personal matter, and they never had the right to enforce and dictate their viewpoint on other people. The right to control others actions, based purely upon your own religious beliefs, is a fallacious one.

[s09119]

they have personal rights; abortion is a personal matter, and they never had the right to enforce and dictate their viewpoint on other people. The right to control others actions, based purely upon your own religious beliefs, is a fallacious one.

That doesn't matter when you have the Supreme Creator on your side.

[Womble]

Let's drop the usual tired and cliche-ridden framework of this discussion for a second. Put aside your pro- and anti-religious biases, your emotional attachment to pursuing female empowerment and/or protection of the unborn, et cetera. Let's deal with the simple and straightforward question at the core of this whole mess:


WHAT IS A FETUS?

How SHOULD it be legally treated? As a full person, rights and all, despite the fact that it doesn't fit the self-awareness criteria required for the normal definition of personhood? Or should its status be like that of a comatose or unconscious person- incapable of self-awareness yet still enjoying the right to life? Or should its status be like that of a dog- a living being entitled to protection from cruelty, yet one who doesn't enjoy an absolute right to life and can be legally mutilated or killed for reasons of expediency? Or is a fetus an object that belongs to the woman carrying it, and therefore she can do to it as she pleases? Or is it a part of the woman's body? Or does it warrant some kind of unique legal status, and if so, what is it?

[Ukko]

That doesn't matter when you have the Supreme Creator on your side.

I dont remember claiming to be on anyones side.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

...Wisconsin governor has sealed the capitol building in Madison to lock remaining protesters inside and bar any additional ones from entering as of Monday morning. Thoughts?

1) The Capitol building is a public building, built and maintained with public monies. The public is peaceably assembling in it to exercise their First Amendment rights. Ergo, locking them in or out is wrong....

my thoughts exactly.
it's a public building and so, suddenly, the PUBLIC!
Locking them out? Nope, especially not when it's just because he doesn't like that they disagree with him. In a free country, that's not how things get done, but maybe I'm answering myself there.

[s09119]

I dont remember claiming to be on anyones side.

Touche

[Joachim]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030602662.html This is absolutely absurd.

New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.

"Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack "life experience," and "they just vote their feelings."

New Hampshire House Republicans are pushing for new laws that would prohibit many college students from voting in the state - and effectively keep some from voting at all.