• 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!

Judge issues temporary order barring public union law's implementation

Moon said:
The judge put a halt to the bill because of the way of the way the meeting was called, not because Walker didn't talk about this bill during his campaign.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no ****, Sherlock. Where did I say it had anything to do with his campaign?
 
How much does it cost each person in taxes to support the unions? Being a full-time student, it doesn't affect me currently. Yet.

The only info that I'm aware of is the fact that taxpayers forfeit money to the unions, which in turn transfer that money to Democratic presidential campaigns. If a democrat/liberal is reading this, would it bother you if your taxes were going to a Republican presidential campaign? If my source is correct, supposedly 130 million dollars were taken by taxpayers, through unions, and transferred to Obama's campaign. To me it seems crooked. I thought union members were to benefit from the money, not presidential candidates.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Yeah, no ****, Sherlock. Where did I say it had anything to do with his campaign?
Click to expand...

Because you're being a good little liberal sycophant and repeating the narrative you were given, so I figured you were trying to tie the two things together. My mistake.
 
Moon said:
Can you show me the Wisconsin statute that limits elected officials to engaging in only those actions and policies that were discussed during their campaigns?

Like I said, it's utter nonsense and nothing more than grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

WI statutes have nothing to do with it. It's all about respect and honesty. WI is a strong union state. Always has been. Some say it's the birthplace of unions. If Walker had been upfront about his plans regarding union bargaining rights, he would not have won election. He is deceitful. WI has figured that out and they're not happy about it. Look at a poll sometime.

So, again, do you have a copy of a Walker campaign ad or speech where he told voters that he planned on ending collective bargaining for public sector unions? I'll wait while you research it.
 
Moon said:
Because you're being a good little liberal sycophant and repeating the narrative you were given, so I figured you were trying to tie the two things together. My mistake.
Click to expand...

Your mistake was thinking in the first place. You don't know anything about me. Try again.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
WI statutes have nothing to do with it. It's all about respect and honesty. WI is a strong union state. Always has been. Some say it's the birthplace of unions. If Walker had been upfront about his plans regarding union bargaining rights, he would not have won election. He is deceitful. WI has figured that out and they're not happy about it. Look at a poll sometime.

So, again, do you have a copy of a Walker campaign ad or speech where he told voters that he planned on ending collective bargaining for public sector unions? I'll wait while you research it.
Click to expand...

What good are the unions if $130,000,000 was supposedly funneled from taxpayers by the unions and given towards Obama's campaign? That's not credible. Union members should recieve the money for their livelihood, not donated to a presidential candidate.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
WI statutes have nothing to do with it. It's all about respect and honesty. WI is a strong union state. Always has been. Some say it's the birthplace of unions. If Walker had been upfront about his plans regarding union bargaining rights, he would not have won election. He is deceitful. WI has figured that out and they're not happy about it. Look at a poll sometime.

So, again, do you have a copy of a Walker campaign ad or speech where he told voters that he planned on ending collective bargaining for public sector unions? I'll wait while you research it.
Click to expand...

then what did the judge use to determine this so called halt to the law that you hang your hat on?

Oh, and I guess "rule of law" only counts when you can use, and twist it for your own means eh?


j-mac
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
WI statutes have nothing to do with it. It's all about respect and honesty. WI is a strong union state. Always has been. Some say it's the birthplace of unions. If Walker had been upfront about his plans regarding union bargaining rights, he would not have won election. He is deceitful. WI has figured that out and they're not happy about it. Look at a poll sometime.

So, again, do you have a copy of a Walker campaign ad or speech where he told voters that he planned on ending collective bargaining for public sector unions? I'll wait while you research it.
Click to expand...

Unless you can show where an elected official is required to only enact policies he talked about during his campaign, your whole narrative is nothing but a red herring.
 
Wake said:
How much does it cost each person in taxes to support the unions? Being a full-time student, it doesn't affect me currently. Yet.

The only info that I'm aware of is the fact that taxpayers forfeit money to the unions, which in turn transfer that money to Democratic presidential campaigns. If a democrat/liberal is reading this, would it bother you if your taxes were going to a Republican presidential campaign? If my source is correct, supposedly 130 million dollars were taken by taxpayers, through unions, and transferred to Obama's campaign. To me it seems crooked. I thought union members were to benefit from the money, not presidential candidates.
Click to expand...

That's quite the stretch. Union dues go to Obama's campaign? I'm sure you have evidence to back that up.

By the way, I'm assuming you have a problem with the US Chamber of Commerce giving 90% of political donations to Republicans. Political donations that were funded in part with money from businesses who receive tax payer subsidies.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Your mistake was thinking in the first place. You don't know anything about me. Try again.
Click to expand...

All I know about you is what you post. If you wish people to have a different perception of you, then don't post things that make you look like a good little sycophant.
 
Wake said:
What good are the unions if $130,000,000 was supposedly funneled from taxpayers by the unions and given towards Obama's campaign? That's not credible. Union members should recieve the money for their livelihood, not donated to a presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you have evidence to back that up.
 
Moon said:
All I know about you is what you post. If you wish people to have a different perception of you, then don't post things that make you look like a good little sycophant.
Click to expand...

Is 'sycophant' your word of the day? Try a new one. It's getting old.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
That's quite the stretch. Union dues go to Obama's campaign? I'm sure you have evidence to back that up.

By the way, I'm assuming you have a problem with the US Chamber of Commerce giving 90% of political donations to Republicans. Political donations that were funded in part with money from businesses who receive tax payer subsidies.
Click to expand...

That's actually common knowledge that unions donate to democratic campaigns, ergo, I needn't a source. Then, if I wished, I could check your post history for biased statements and ask for links, just to show how annoying it could be. Common knowledge is different than biased statements.

If the second paragraph is true, then that too, to me, is wrong. Look at my sig. Just because one side does "x" doesn't mean another side should do "x" as well. Meaning I dislike hypocrisy. However, it is all in the details. The second paragraph may not be the exact same as the union donations I mentioned. The tricky part about demanding links and proof is that it's not a one-way street. I would ask that you provide proof of your statement, which was not common knowledge. What made my statement common knowledge is because I have seen in both media channels and in political forums arguments that support and defend the fact that unions donate millions to democratic campaigns. Both sides acknowledge yet differ on that issue. Ergo, common knowledge.
 
Moon said:
Unless you can show where an elected official is required to only enact policies he talked about during his campaign, your whole narrative is nothing but a red herring.
Click to expand...

There you go getting confused again. Did I say that officials or candidates are required to only enact policies that they talked about during the campaign? That's right, I didn't. What I said was that it's a matter of respect and honesty. The voters of WI know that Walker didn't reveal his intentions during the campaign. If he had, he wouldn't have been elected. They know that. He knows that.

Here you go. Prove them wrong.

Scott Walker tanking in another Wisconsin poll [UPDATE] - Minneapolis / St. Paul News - The Blotter

There's more bad poll news for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who insists he's going to stand firm in his budget battle to strip public employees of their collective bargaining rights.

Rasmussen Reports is out with a new survey of Wisconsin voters showing that 57 percent of them don't approve of how he's handling his job.

He's held in even lower esteem by parents with kids in public schools, where teachers have already agreed to a pay cut: 67 percent of those voters disapprove of what Walker is doing.

​The Rasmussen findings come after a Public Policy Polling survey last week that asked Wisconsin voters whether they would support Walker over his Democratic opponent in November, Tom Barrett, in a do-over.
Barrett beat Walker by a 52-45 margin.

Those kinds of results, and national polls that reflect similar sentiments, prompted Forbes Magazine to declare that Walker has lost his war in "one of the great political miscalculations of our time."
Click to expand...
 
Wake said:
That's actually common knowledge that unions donate to democratic campaigns, ergo, I needn't a source. Then, if I wished, I could check your post history for biased statements and ask for links, just to show how annoying it could be. Common knowledge is different than biased statements.

If the second paragraph is true, then that too, to me, is wrong. Look at my sig. Just because one side does "x" doesn't mean another side should do "x" as well. Meaning I dislike hypocrisy. However, it is all in the details. The second paragraph may not be the exact same as the union donations I mentioned. The tricky part about demanding links and proof is that it's not a one-way street. I would ask that you provide proof of your statement, which was not common knowledge. What made my statement common knowledge is because I have seen in both media channels and in political forums arguments that support and defend the fact that unions donate millions to democratic campaigns. Both sides acknowledge yet differ on that issue. Ergo, common knowledge.
Click to expand...
union campaign contributions are separate from union dues.....their are federal laws against using dues for political purposes....unions raise money through voluntary contributions
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
That's quite the stretch. Union dues go to Obama's campaign? I'm sure you have evidence to back that up.
Click to expand...


Well, here are two examples....I can only imagine how many more are out there undetected....

The folks over at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed a formal complaint with the FEC over a case of two Alabama teachers that discovered a union scheme to “divert their money” into a political contribution last year.

Teachers File FEC Complaint against NEA for Illegal PAC Money Laundering Scheme

Sworn testimony indicates union officials misled educators, diverted union treasury funds into political committee

Washington, DC (January 13, 2009) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced today it will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking it to investigate charges made by two Alabama educators who discovered a union scheme to divert their money into the National Education Association’s (NEA) political action committee (PAC).

Claire Waites, the chair of the science department, and Dr. Jeanne Fox, an assistant principal, both work at Daphne Middle School in Bay Minette, Alabama. Waites and Fox are both members of the Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA), Alabama Education Association (AEA), and NEA teacher unions.

In July 2008, Waites and Fox attended the NEA’s annual convention in Washington, DC, as delegates of the BCEA. By telephone, BCEA union president Saadia Hunter informed Waites and Fox that contributions to a “children’s fund” in their names were made from money included in their expense reimbursements for their trip to the convention.

Although Hunter told Waites that these contributions were not political in nature, they actually went to the NEA’s PAC, the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education.

Later, Hunter admitted that the money would be contributed to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Sworn statements by Waites and Fox indicate that the AEA union boss also admitted that the PAC contributions were paid with BCEA members’ dues. However, it is illegal for unions to contribute to political candidates using “dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.”

Teachers Upset Union Dues Misdirected To Obama Campaign | THE UNION LABEL
Click to expand...


j-mac
 
regarding the recall efforts in WI...
The right of recall in Wisconsin extends to all elective offices in the state, but only after the elected official has served a full year in his or her current term of office.

Specifically, the right of recall extends to all statewide executive officers, including the Governor of Wisconsin, the Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Treasurer, the Attorney General of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Secretary of State, the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction, and all members of the Wisconsin State Senate and the Wisconsin State Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Well, here are two examples....I can only imagine how many more are out there undetected....




j-mac
Click to expand...

You can ask the same of government as well, I'm sure there's lots of suspicious activity we know little about. But here is a point with Unions where you have improper activity, it is up to the people in the Union to make sure it stays properly constrained, such as taking them to court in this case. It is hardly cause to erase all unions. Unions still serve a purpose, they're just like government; necessary evils. You have to restrain them properly to have them work properly. But just as with government, you don't huck the whole thing out. There is need for it on some level.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
I'm sure you have evidence to back that up.
Click to expand...

Let's take a closer look. Consider this: The unions agreed to financial cuts. He then took away their collective bargaining rights. Look at what the union members state: they state that it was not about money, but cutting off the funnel that connects union money to democratic presidential candidates. Why do you think Walker did that if the unions agreed to the financial cuts? Because it would halt the cash flow that would undoubtedly fuel Obama's second campaign. Why do you think the union members were so furious that the bargaining rights were cut after they agreed to financial cuts? Because now they can't funnel money to democratic campaigns. Why do you think the unions are so interested in it? Screw their tiny increased pay towards their pensions---they can't fund democratic elections. Why do you think unions from all around the state came to protest? Why do you think Republicans are jumping to cut the union cash flow in other states? Do you know what a punch in the wallet is like? It's similar to a punch in the testicles, the pain lasts much longer. You cut the heartstrings of the democratic money flow.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
So that means union money goes to Obama? OK :roll:
Click to expand...

Although Hunter told Waites that these contributions were not political in nature, they actually went to the NEA’s PAC, the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education.

Later, Hunter admitted that the money would be contributed to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension.....It is a good thing....


j-mac
 
Ikari said:
You can ask the same of government as well, I'm sure there's lots of suspicious activity we know little about. But here is a point with Unions where you have improper activity, it is up to the people in the Union to make sure it stays properly constrained, such as taking them to court in this case. It is hardly cause to erase all unions. Unions still serve a purpose, they're just like government; necessary evils. You have to restrain them properly to have them work properly. But just as with government, you don't huck the whole thing out. There is need for it on some level.
Click to expand...


Ok, so what functions do Unions represent that we don't now have duplicate regulatory agencies in the Federal Government to take care of?

j-mac
 
randel said:
union campaign contributions are separate from union dues.....their are federal laws against using dues for political purposes....unions raise money through voluntary contributions
Click to expand...

If they are mere donations, then assuredly they wouldn't be so mad when Walker cut their bargaining rights after they agreed to the financial cuts? No. Money from taxpayers are being funneled to the unions and given to democratic campaigns.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
So that means union money goes to Obama? OK :roll:
Click to expand...

From taxpayers.

When Republicans typically give to campaigns, it is done so privately. Though, I am curious about the case you mentioned earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom