• 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

Sgt Meowenstein said:
I'll rephrase my question. So that means all unions siphon money to Obama?
Click to expand...


I don't know about all unions, this one did, with these two individuals....If we could ever get unions to open the books maybe we'd find out....

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, here are two examples....I can only imagine how many more are out there undetected....




j-mac
Click to expand...
hmmmm...seems this was dismissed...Federal Elections Commission (FEC) press release - FEC TAKES FINAL ACTION ON SIX CASES - LegiStorm


RESPONDENTS:
Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA); Saadia Hunter, BCEA President; Alabama Education Association (AEA); National Education Association (NEA); and National Education Association Fund for Children and Public Education (NEA Fund)

COMPLAINANTS:
National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.; Claire Waites; and Jeanne Fox

SUBJECT:
The complaint alleged that BCEA, a local labor union, made a prohibited contribution to the NEA Fund, the NEA’s separate segregated fund. The complaint further alleged that BCEA and Hunter made, and AEA and the NEA Fund accepted, contributions in the name of two of the complainants, Waites and Fox. Additional allegations included that Hunter, BCEA, AEA or the NEA Fund failed to inform Waites and Fox of the political purposes of the NEA Fund at the time of solicitation and that Hunter, BCEA or the NEA Fund failed to inform Waites and Fox of their right to refuse to contribute without any reprisal.

OUTCOME:
The Commission used its prosecutorial discretion to dismiss the matter in light of the small dollar amount at issue and the inconsistencies in the factual record of this matter.
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you admit that Walker's true intentions were to hurt Democratic fundraising capabilities? In other words, you admit that Walker's fight was never about the budget, it was about politics. At least you admit it. Maybe you can get Walker to do the same. He keeps trying to sell it as a budget issue when, clearly, it is not.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
I'll rephrase my question. So that means all unions siphon money to Obama?
Click to expand...

I don't deal in absolutes anymore save for my religious beliefs. I am almost sure that all unions do not do so. However, that is an unknown. Though, I have seen on the Glenn Beck show that George Soros supposedly funds some of them. Who knows. I'm not fool enough to think Beck is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but I do know he's been quite right at times, and that those who are wise can see certain schemes that aren't seen by those who merely require proof. They can see such schemes before the evidence presents itself.
 
Last edited:
randel said:
hmmmm...seems this was dismissed...Federal Elections Commission (FEC) press release - FEC TAKES FINAL ACTION ON SIX CASES - LegiStorm


RESPONDENTS:
Baldwin County Education Association (BCEA); Saadia Hunter, BCEA President; Alabama Education Association (AEA); National Education Association (NEA); and National Education Association Fund for Children and Public Education (NEA Fund)

COMPLAINANTS:
National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.; Claire Waites; and Jeanne Fox

SUBJECT:
The complaint alleged that BCEA, a local labor union, made a prohibited contribution to the NEA Fund, the NEA’s separate segregated fund. The complaint further alleged that BCEA and Hunter made, and AEA and the NEA Fund accepted, contributions in the name of two of the complainants, Waites and Fox. Additional allegations included that Hunter, BCEA, AEA or the NEA Fund failed to inform Waites and Fox of the political purposes of the NEA Fund at the time of solicitation and that Hunter, BCEA or the NEA Fund failed to inform Waites and Fox of their right to refuse to contribute without any reprisal.

OUTCOME:
The Commission used its prosecutorial discretion to dismiss the matter in light of the small dollar amount at issue and the inconsistencies in the factual record of this matter.
Click to expand...


Oh, so the amount of the money is what is at question....I guess we can throw the law out the window then....:cool: What a load of crap....Does the law tie an amount to what is at stake in breaking it?


j-mac
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
So you admit that Walker's true intentions were to hurt Democratic fundraising capabilities? In other words, you admit that Walker's fight was never about the budget, it was about politics. At least you admit it. Maybe you can get Walker to do the same. He keeps trying to sell it as a budget issue when, clearly, it is not.
Click to expand...

Again, look at my sig. What do I know? I'm merely an impressionable young man that can see the flaws in both parties. If you could do the same, then you'd undoubtedly admit that I was correct in full in the latest quote of mine you responded to. You see, in politics, if you can snip the money strings of the other party, in this case the money flow from taxpayers to democratic elections, you gain an advantage. Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that republicans wanted to snip that money flow. I consider such funneling to be wrong, which is my only reason for posting here.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
So you admit that Walker's true intentions were to hurt Democratic fundraising capabilities? In other words, you admit that Walker's fight was never about the budget, it was about politics. At least you admit it. Maybe you can get Walker to do the same. He keeps trying to sell it as a budget issue when, clearly, it is not.
Click to expand...


Sure it is, it's both.....Funny how upset you libs get when your own tactics are used against you.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
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
Click to expand...

Unions in general are association and contract rights. People have the right to associate, thus they can form the Union. They have the right to contract, which is the main purpose of the Union. It's to collectivize their bargaining power so that they can best argue for contractual compensation for their labor. Nothing inherently wrong with it.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, so the amount of the money is what is at question....I guess we can throw the law out the window then....:cool: What a load of crap....Does the law tie an amount to what is at stake in breaking it?


j-mac
Click to expand...
perhaps you shouldnt cherry pick...what was the rest of that sentence j? '..and the inconsistencies in the factual record of this matter.' seems the FEC thought something didnt sound right with the complaint. you brought up the complaint, i showed you where it was dismissed.
 
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...

One word for ya
BAILOUT. taxpayer money

One sentance.
Oil grants for oil companies with record profits. taxpayer money
 
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...

Oil companies paid more for Bush.
 
Ikari said:
Unions in general are association and contract rights. People have the right to associate, thus they can form the Union. They have the right to contract, which is the main purpose of the Union. It's to collectivize their bargaining power so that they can best argue for contractual compensation for their labor. Nothing inherently wrong with it.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you forced to join a union if your job demands it? I remember hearing arguments by democratic spokesmouths that if people had the right to enter a union or not, that it would erode the union. If there's no choice, then I would imagine some could deem it wrong.
 
Ikari said:
Unions in general are association and contract rights. People have the right to associate, thus they can form the Union. They have the right to contract, which is the main purpose of the Union. It's to collectivize their bargaining power so that they can best argue for contractual compensation for their labor. Nothing inherently wrong with it.
Click to expand...


That is not what I asked.....You said that Unions preform a necessary function, I asked what that would be that the Government don't already have an agency to preform?


j-mac
 
presluc said:
Oil companies paid more for Bush.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant if it was given privately. Assuming, of course, your statement is true.
 
randel said:
perhaps you shouldnt cherry pick...what was the rest of that sentence j? '..and the inconsistencies in the factual record of this matter.' seems the FEC thought something didnt sound right with the complaint. you brought up the complaint, i showed you where it was dismissed.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.....Yeah I believe that .... Nothing to see eh?..... Just like the Soprano's.


j-mac
 
presluc said:
One word for ya
BAILOUT. taxpayer money

One sentance.
Oil grants for oil companies with record profits. taxpayer money
Click to expand...

I did not see this post before I responded to your second one. This, I say, is interesting. Since I don't have enough knowledge on this, and that from my lack of knowledge, I see this as an interesting point that I'm unable to refute.

Would someone here be able to respond to his quote in my place? It does interest me.
 
j-mac said:
Uh huh.....Yeah I believe that .... Nothing to see eh?..... Just like the Soprano's.


j-mac
Click to expand...
it is what it is...the FEC seems to think that the case didnt have much merit.
 
Wake said:
That's irrelevant if it was given privately. Assuming, of course, your statement is true.
Click to expand...

Well, I know it may sound a bit circumstancial.

However after Bush was elected, oil companies broke records in profits twice that I know of.

Coincedence maybe, but I find it strange that this president would offer 5 million dollar grant for reaserch to oil companies after they had a record breaking profit year.?

Then of course there was the sword dance Bush did for a shiek to get more oil.
 
Last edited:
presluc said:
Well, I know it may sound a bit circumstancial.

However after Bush was elected, oil companies broke records in profits twice that I know of.

Coincedence maybe, but I find it strange that this president would offer 5 million dollar grant for reaserch to oil companies after they had a record breaking profit year.?

Then of course there was the sword dance Bush did for a shiek to get more oil.
Click to expand...

A sword dance does sound odd to me. I'd respond but I have to leave. I'll return after a while, so please don't think I'm ignoring your posts.
 
Wake said:
I did not see this post before I responded to your second one. This, I say, is interesting. Since I don't have enough knowledge on this, and that from my lack of knowledge, I see this as an interesting point that I'm unable to refute.

Would someone here be able to respond to his quote in my place? It does interest me.
Click to expand...

Sir my compliments on your atempt at sarcasim.
Ya almost had it , almost.
 
Whovian said:
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...
I've known this for weeks and YOU are just learning this? :lamo This is precisely why the recall of Walker can't happen until after January of next year. However, 8 GOP state senators are eligible to be recalled NOW!!!!!
 
Wake said:
A sword dance does sound odd to me. I'd respond but I have to leave. I'll return after a while, so please don't think I'm ignoring your posts.
Click to expand...

Chow, adios, ta ta.
 
Does this remind anyone else of a little piece of legislature that recently passed? .....ill give you a hint....it has to do with a health care reform.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
You're confused again. A judge put a halt to the bill and, thanks to recall efforts, several Republican state legislators will soon be up for recall. Because of the threat of recall, I'm guessing some of those Republicans will have second thoughts on their vote when the bill comes up again (assuming it gets reversed through the courts).

Anyway, from your answer it sounds like you're in the possession of a Walker campaign ad or speech where he mentions his intentions regarding unions. Could you link it? I'd like to check it out.
Click to expand...

People here have been making this same request over and over and over again in many of the 629 threads on Wisconsin. Not once has anybody ever come up with something that you are asking for. NOT ONCE!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom