• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Republicans Try to Lure Back Dems By Scheduling Controversial Vote

Is it alright if republicans hide whenever they percieve a defeat when it comes to voting?

Like when Indiana Republicans ran out in 2004 when Democrats wouldn't let them amend the state constitution to make gays 2nd Class Citizens?

It's funny. They did it on Feb. 24, 2004. Yet, 7 years later when Democrats do it to defend workers' rights (instead of trying to put discrimination into the Constitution), Republicans call it "un-democratic". Pfft.
 
............those same stolen birth certificates and SS cards used to get photo IDs? Why can they be used to obtain a photo ID, but not to vote?

I am sure if you want to collectively turn our heads to illegals voting then sure why not take your stance. But, just because more than a few states like my former Maryland have buckled to La Raza pressure, under liberal demo governence, and allow illegals to obtain DL's no questions asked. Sanctuary cities, and Sanctuary states are doing nothing but furthering an already out of control problem with illegal immigration, and now to no ones surprise demo's want to make them yet another beholden voting block while keeping them in their place. What a bunch of ****.


j-mac
 
And there will be one for Walker in January - guaranteed. Processes are already underway.


Yeah, good luck with that. He is doing what he ran on. The people are behind him. The tax paying citizen that is.


j-mac
 
Like when Indiana Republicans ran out in 2004 when Democrats wouldn't let them amend the state constitution to make gays 2nd Class Citizens?

It's funny. They did it on Feb. 24, 2004. Yet, 7 years later when Democrats do it to defend workers' rights (instead of trying to put discrimination into the Constitution), Republicans call it "un-democratic". Pfft.


"Workers rights" pfft. code language for class warfare.


j-mac
 
Yeah, good luck with that. He is doing what he ran on. The people are behind him. The tax paying citizen that is.


j-mac

Because teachers, cops, and firefighters aren't tax-paying citizens.

This is the problem with right-wing rhetoric. It now equates hard-working professional people who are largely underpaid for their education-level with welfare queens.

And poll numbers show that 61% of Americans support the protesters over Walker.
Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights - USATODAY.com

The only ones committing class warfare are Gov. Walker and his puppet masters who will steal government utilities from the public with Walker's permission.
 
Because teachers, cops, and firefighters aren't tax-paying citizens.

This is the problem with right-wing rhetoric. It now equates hard-working professional people who are largely underpaid for their education-level with welfare queens.

And poll numbers show that 61% of Americans support the protesters over Walker.
Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights - USATODAY.com

The only ones committing class warfare are Gov. Walker and his puppet masters who will steal government utilities from the public with Walker's permission.


And the problem with left wing propaganda is that it tries, and woefully fails to mask the socialist content contained within. I am a truck driver, some would say a true working professional, with over 20 years on the road, and over 2 million safe miles, where's my package like that? You know? It's not happening because it would bankrupt my company and then I'd be out of a job...Wow, that takes real foresight there I tell ya.

The problem with your push poll from USA Today is that it framed the question in a way to illicit a specific response. Typical.

On Walker, suppose you tell me where the hell he is supposed to get the money to continue to allow these leaches to retire at 55 with 90% pay for the rest of their lives, and still attract business to his state, and not go bankrupt. What a joke.


j-mac
 
Do you people honestly believe illegal aliens would risk being caught and deported just to cast a vote? Give me a break. You do know you have to register in order to vote. You need to give your name, address and how long you've lived in your city. Illegals stay away from polls.
How many illegals voted in the last election?

Elderly people vote for candidates that support medicare and Social Security.


Voter fraud is committed by the vote counters and poll workers, not the voters. That's a myth.

I just had to respond to this post.

Sound Politics: The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat

So far, this would seem to be a routine story, just another example of a politician who didn't pay enough attention to the folks back home, or how his district was changing. But there is more to the story. Dornan charged that Sanchez's margin came from non-citizens, and an investigation by the House of Representatives found that 547 non-citizens had voted in the election. Some believe that far more non-citizens voted, who were not detected. John Fund, in Stealing Elections, says that:

An INS investigation in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California's Forty-sixth Congressional District revealed that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez." (p. 24)

Unfortunately, Fund does not provide an end note for that quotation, though he does for most others in the book. The 4,023 is a larger number than I have seen in other accounts, though I have seen claims that more than 2,000 non-citizens were registered to vote in the district. The authoritative Almanac of American Politics (1998 edition) says only that "it is possible that Dornan has a case", which is as far as I would go, too.

But the Almanac has more to say about how many of those non-citizens got on the rolls, and that part of the story is also instructive.

Dornan brought his case to the House Contested Elections Task Force, which in February 1997 issued many subpoenas and promised a hearing in Orange County. Dornan argued that there were 1,789 illegal voters, and by Spring 1997 came up with proof that 547 non-citizens voted in Orange County and that 303 ineligibles had been registered to vote in the 46th District by Hermandad Nacional Mexicana; this fell short of proving the result was wrong, but raised questions about the netherworld of voter registration in Orange County. California's registration laws make it easy to get anyone on the voter rolls (the accused assassin of Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio was a registered Democrat in San Pedro), and the Clinton Administration INS made great efforts to process new citizens and dispensed with the usual check for criminal records if the FBI did not respond within sixty days.

Hermandad Nacional Mexicana was running an interesting operation in Orange County.

Moreover, Dornan's attorney, Michael Schroeder, claims the taxpayer-funded English and citizenship classes were being illegally used for political purposes. In addition to being taught verb conjugations and the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution, students in Hermandad's classes were receiving political indoctrination and being registered to vote even if they didn't meet the legal requirements.

And it was not just Dornan who found an irregularity or two in the group's registrations. So did the Los Angeles Times and an independent organization, the Fair Elections Group. Taxpayers will be pleased to learn that Hermandad Nacional Mexicana was not only a non-profit organization, in spite of its activities, but was subsidized by grants from a variety of governments. And those who have read this site for some time will not be surprised that nearly all of those registered by the organization requested absentee ballots. As we have learned again and again, absentee ballots are the choice of most who commit vote fraud....

Now before you think of issuing some kind of partisian snap at me, I actually dispised Dornan and in all the years I spent living in his district I never once voted for him. I was thrilled when Sanchez was elected. I was not thrilled to discover how easily non-citizens could end up casting ballots in American elections. Every election there are claims of voter fraud, and even evidence of voter fraud.

This is just one incident in one election... 850 non-citizen votes verified by several independent investigations. Don't even try to pretend this is the only time such a thing has ever happened. Just don't go there.

Nobody should ever be allowed to vote without a photo ID that has been obtained by showing proof of citizenship, whether that is a birth certificate or naturalization papers. A person cannot board an airplane or open a bank account without a photo ID, for heaven sakes. Getting one is certainly no hardship.
 
Last edited:
Like when Indiana Republicans ran out in 2004 when Democrats wouldn't let them amend the state constitution to make gays 2nd Class Citizens?

It's funny. They did it on Feb. 24, 2004. Yet, 7 years later when Democrats do it to defend workers' rights (instead of trying to put discrimination into the Constitution), Republicans call it "un-democratic". Pfft.

Would you please show me what "rights" a worker has?

I want details, I want links.

To save you time, you may skip the anti-discrimination laws and right to work in a safe environment. I mean the "rights" that these unions are fighting for.

Thanks in advance.
 
Would you please show me what "rights" a worker has?

I want details, I want links.

To save you time, you may skip the anti-discrimination laws and right to work in a safe environment. I mean the "rights" that these unions are fighting for.

Thanks in advance.

Uh...the right to organize around a common goal:

Employer/Union Rights and Obligations | NLRB

If there's no reason for them to organize (i.e. collective bargaining), then there's no need for a union. Thus, Walker is denying them their right to organize.
 
And the problem with left wing propaganda is that it tries, and woefully fails to mask the socialist content contained within. I am a truck driver, some would say a true working professional, with over 20 years on the road, and over 2 million safe miles, where's my package like that? You know? It's not happening because it would bankrupt my company and then I'd be out of a job...Wow, that takes real foresight there I tell ya.

The problem with your push poll from USA Today is that it framed the question in a way to illicit a specific response. Typical.

On Walker, suppose you tell me where the hell he is supposed to get the money to continue to allow these leaches to retire at 55 with 90% pay for the rest of their lives, and still attract business to his state, and not go bankrupt. What a joke.


j-mac

So do you think the American worker is less productive than 10 years ago?

The answer: No.

Have wages increased for most workers? Also, no.

Again: The unions conceded to his cuts; they just want to maintain the right to collective bargaining. Allowing them to bargain doesn't have a direct effect on the budget. It's only about destroying their right to organize. That's all.

Yes. Some things have to be changed about pension plans that are over-promised. But in a time of record profits, the fact that people are more angry at their fellow workers than they are at the people making billions doing nothing is sad.

Eventually, we'll end up turning teachers, cops and fire fighters into slave-wagers. Seems like we're starting to consider them the same as fast-food workers. Why not just pay them minimum wage? Oh...wait. People want to eliminate the minimum wage, too.

Since people think of teachers as baby-sitters, why don't we pay teachers like baby-sitters? $5 an hour/child to watch 30 children for 6.5 hours a day. Oh, wait. That would mean paying them $170,000 a year instead of $50,000 a year.
 
And there will be one for Walker in January - guaranteed. Processes are already underway.

of course there will be. Unions are tough fighters; you don't take them on unless you're willing for them to try to take you out.

but we will see what the voters say. always easier to get people to vote against something than for it, but i'm thinking if he survives this, he will be handily reelected in 2016.
 
Again: The unions conceded to his cuts; they just want to maintain the right to collective bargaining. Allowing them to bargain doesn't have a direct effect on the budget. It's only about destroying their right to organize. That's all.

Yes. Some things have to be changed about pension plans that are over-promised. But in a time of record profits, the fact that people are more angry at their fellow workers than they are at the people making billions doing nothing is sad.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for public sector workers to accept these cuts; the fact that they openly admit that they will is a sign of how slowly they are developing throughout this struggle, due in most part to the conservatism of the union bureaucracy who wants to use the cuts as a bargaining chip.

Second, public sector pensions aren't over-funded. I have no problem with phasing out pensions in favor of 401k's, for a variety of reasons, but this is simply a lie.
 
Uh...the right to organize around a common goal:

Employer/Union Rights and Obligations | NLRB

If there's no reason for them to organize (i.e. collective bargaining), then there's no need for a union. Thus, Walker is denying them their right to organize.

Ok, good, I was right. You conviently overlook the fact that these labor unions are taxpayer funded. That means that taxpayers have a right to vote them away.

These bastards are sucking off of the taxpayers and you think THEY should have a right to demand **** their private sector cohorts can only dream of?

What planet did you come from? Can you differentiate a private sector from public sector employee? If I have a private company and my employees want to unionize, I can't stop that and neither can you. But when TEACHERS and other public sector employees, whos paychecks come directly from the taxpayers, want to unionize, then the TAXPAYERS have a right to step in and say no.

On a slightly different note, Wal-Mart is very anti-union and threatened employees who try to unionize. It says on that site they can't do that. Why aren't they in trouble for it?
 
Last edited:
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for public sector workers to accept these cuts; the fact that they openly admit that they will is a sign of how slowly they are developing throughout this struggle, due in most part to the conservatism of the union bureaucracy who wants to use the cuts as a bargaining chip.

Second, public sector pensions aren't over-funded. I have no problem with phasing out pensions in favor of 401k's, for a variety of reasons, but this is simply a lie.

Public sector unions will only give up their cushy pensions when taxpayers pry them from their cold dead hands. 401K's? You've got to be kidding.

Your first paragraph makes no sense. They have agreed to pay more towards their pensions and healthcare costs because they are trying to save jobs. And because they were backed into the corner of public opinion.
 
So do you think the American worker is less productive than 10 years ago?

The answer: No.

Have wages increased for most workers? Also, no.

Link for this, please?

Again: The unions conceded to his cuts; they just want to maintain the right to collective bargaining. Allowing them to bargain doesn't have a direct effect on the budget. It's only about destroying their right to organize. That's all.

Again, they will retain the right to bargain over and above what is even allowed at the Federal level. That's all.
 
Like when Indiana Republicans ran out in 2004 when Democrats wouldn't let them amend the state constitution to make gays 2nd Class Citizens?

It's funny. They did it on Feb. 24, 2004. Yet, 7 years later when Democrats do it to defend workers' rights (instead of trying to put discrimination into the Constitution), Republicans call it "un-democratic". Pfft.

Do you have a link for that???
 
You are big government. More laws means bigger government control. Hello?
Government adding restrictions in order to vote is big government. You are the closet liberal. Why deny it anymore? I am fiscally conservative, small government, socially liberal.

You have absolutely no idea what big government means. Big government is considered the high taxation, centralization of political power, excessive public spending and or the inappropriate government interference in public policy and private sector. More laws do not mean bigger government control or big government. And it still has nothing to do with the question "What would prevent Bill Hendrickson from having someone take him to the DMV?"
 
Last edited:
Do you have a link for that???

•Legislation: The Legislature adjourned March 4, effectively killing a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The measure passed the state Senate but stalled in the House when Democrats refused to bring it to a vote. Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to force a vote by stalling all legislative activity for one week by refusing to enter the House chambers. (HJR 3, SJR 7).

50-state rundown on gay marriage laws

It wasn't right when they did it either. This is a subversion of the Democratic process, imo. Just because you're in the minority, doesn't mean you can take your bat and ball and go home.
 
So do you think the American worker is less productive than 10 years ago?


Allow me to answer for myself thanks. I don't think that people are less productive, although in education a real argument could be made.


Again: The unions conceded to his cuts; they just want to maintain the right to collective bargaining. Allowing them to bargain doesn't have a direct effect on the budget. It's only about destroying their right to organize. That's all.

What? Concession for what? One year? That's not much there FFG, considering that PS Unions are different from private business unions in the fact that they have a direct effect on electing the person that they are negotiating with. Man, talk about a Special Interest group. PS Unions shouldn't have collective bargaining in the first place, You know who said that? Not me, one of your hero's FDR.

Yes. Some things have to be changed about pension plans that are over-promised. But in a time of record profits, the fact that people are more angry at their fellow workers than they are at the people making billions doing nothing is sad.

We are talking about the Public Sector here, what profits? The states are broke!

Eventually, we'll end up turning teachers, cops and fire fighters into slave-wagers. Seems like we're starting to consider them the same as fast-food workers. Why not just pay them minimum wage? Oh...wait. People want to eliminate the minimum wage, too.

Oh brother, get real will ya? PS union members make on average today some 20% higher wages for like jobs in the private sector when you factor in benefits, and ability to collectively bargain. You libs need to understand that spreading everyone elses money around has shifted to stealing from those that make less than you do to pay your salaries and benefits. That will stop trust me.


Since people think of teachers as baby-sitters, why don't we pay teachers like baby-sitters? $5 an hour/child to watch 30 children for 6.5 hours a day. Oh, wait. That would mean paying them $170,000 a year instead of $50,000 a year.


:roll: Good God man. First off, most day care workers are not paid by the child, secondly, I want the good teachers to be paid more as incentive to do a good job, and I also want the bad teachers to be able to be fired. Right now that can't happen.


j-mac
 

No, that's not it. When he became President, he found out that Federal workers have never had the right to collective bargaining. Oh, and lest we forget, he's proposed a two-year pay freeze for all of them. Oh, and lest we forget, he doesn't need the union's okay. I'd say his clogs just don't fit anymore.
 
No, that's not it. When he became President, he found out that Federal workers have never had the right to collective bargaining. Oh, and lest we forget, he's proposed a two-year pay freeze for all of them. Oh, and lest we forget, he doesn't need the union's okay. I'd say his clogs just don't fit anymore.

Funny I watched some of the Sunday morning shows today. All of the hosts seemed to have missed your point about Federal workers not have collective bargaining points. Amazing that these folks who get paid millions to read their scripts know so little about the substance of what they are talking about.
 
They were caught right? No, I don't think it is ahuge problem. It isn't a case of never versus always. Either one or the other.

Those two were. No one knows how many didn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom