• 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!

Petition to recall Wisconsin GOP Sen. Sheila Harsdorf to be filed Tuesday

If that were actually the case, I wouldn't support public unions either. But it is not. Public unions have negotiated in good faith with their employers to recieve better benefits in lieu of salary. The fact of the matter is that our teachers, firemen, and policemen are paid too little, not too much, and the lack of union representation is going to hurt the service to the public they perform as you won't be able to attract quality people for less then they can make in the private market.
Union BS Talking points.

What about them? Do they expect to get public services for less than it would cost them in the private market?
Taxpayers = slaves to the state, we know.



The employer negotiated for higher benefits to keep their salaries lower.
No, the employer are the People of the State, and for too long they were out of loop as political hacks negotiated sweetheart deals with other peoples monies in exchange for campaign contributions and votes. Which is what the Dem's are REALLY upset about, that power/money spigot just got turned off.

Okay, ignore history in Germany if it makes you uncomfortable. Unions are the first thing to go in clearing the way for corporate control of government. There can be no right to bargain collectively in a fascist controlled system. Why would you expect workers to happily give up this right?
What about the rights of the PEOPLE? You seem to ignore that.
 
If that were actually the case, I wouldn't support public unions either. But it is not. Public unions have negotiated in good faith with their employers to recieve better benefits in lieu of salary. The fact of the matter is that our teachers, firemen, and policemen are paid too little, not too much, and the lack of union representation is going to hurt the service to the public they perform as you won't be able to attract quality people for less then they can make in the private market.

I dissagree. For starters, the tax payers/voters are the public union’s employers and as such, they have just spoken (in Wisconsin anyway).

Second, I completely disagree with your assessments that public employees are paid too little rather than too much and that union representation is what attracts quality employees for less than they can make in the private sector. I don’t know where you get the numbers to support such absurd ideas (well maybe from the union’s website) but here in the real world things work a little differently than you presume.
 
I dissagree. For starters, the tax payers/voters are the public union’s employers and as such, they have just spoken (in Wisconsin anyway).

Second, I completely disagree with your assessments that public employees are paid too little rather than too much and that union representation is what attracts quality employees for less than they can make in the private sector. I don’t know where you get the numbers to support such absurd ideas (well maybe from the union’s website) but here in the real world things work a little differently than you presume.


Cata merely parrots the DNC Tlaking points from DailyKos. No one that has bothered to actually look into the issue can say the PSU are underpaid, and under compensated. That's just non-sense.
 
Cata merely parrots the DNC Tlaking points from DailyKos. No one that has bothered to actually look into the issue can say the PSU are underpaid, and under compensated. That's just non-sense.

Is it possible to disagree without it being called parroting talking points? :coffeepap
 
Is it possible to disagree without it being called parroting talking points? :coffeepap

Sure but it would require some original thought or a talking point that is at least partially founded in reality.
 
Sure but it would require some original thought or a talking point that is at least partially founded in reality.

Not sure original means different. For example, if one has never read those sites, the thougth would be original even if it was simlar to them. Nor does it mean that either is incorrect. As the the discourse should focus on the validity of the points, and not the originality of them, I think the tactic of calling something a talking point is meant to side step the point. Do you think I'm wrong?
 
I dissagree. For starters, the tax payers/voters are the public union’s employers and as such, they have just spoken (in Wisconsin
anyway).

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Walker did not run on busting the union.

Second, I completely disagree with your assessments that public employees are paid too little rather than too much and that union representation is what attracts quality employees for less than they can make in the private sector. I don’t know where you get the numbers to support such absurd ideas (well maybe from the union’s website) but here in the real world things work a little differently than you presume.

Tell me why you think the best and the brighest college graduates would want to go into a career that doesn't pay squat?
 
Not sure original means different. For example, if one has never read those sites, the thougth would be original even if it was simlar to them. Nor does it mean that either is incorrect. As the the discourse should focus on the validity of the points, and not the originality of them, I think the tactic of calling something a talking point is meant to side step the point. Do you think I'm wrong?

Yes I think you are wrong. For example, “Walker did not run on busting the union” is simply a talking point put out by the far left. It really has no relevance to the issue at hand because there are no laws requiring Walker to only pass laws that he campaigned on.

Are you suggesting that Catawba watched every Walker campaign speech and came up with this on his own? It is a talking point. It isn’t original and even though it may be factual, it isn’t relevant to the issue at hand.
 
Is it possible to disagree without it being called parroting talking points? :coffeepap

It is possible, but not when one person is giving talking points.

Reality check is, the DNC isn't upset that Walker "busted the Unions" because it hurts the workers, it's an issue of the power and money. This is reality. Unions give TONS o money and actively support the Dems.

The points that Cata is going off with...

Madison -- The same day Senate Democrats left the state to boycott a vote on Gov. Scott Walker’s collective bargaining bill, a union official from Washington, D.C., provided the Democrats' leader with talking points.

Emails released by the office of Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) show how Democratic senators sought to explain their unusual action to drive to Illinois to block a vote on Walker’s measure, which would end most collective bargaining by public employee unions. The measure ultimately passed the Legislature but is now facing legal challenges.

One of the people offering suggestions to Senate Democrats was Blaine Rummel, a spokesperson from the national office of the public workers union AFSCME, also known as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Rummel sent an email marked “TPs,” for talking points, to Miller spokesman Mike Browne late on Feb. 17 after Senate Democrats had crossed the state line that morning.

Also that day, Rummel had helped coordinate AFSCME’s opposition to the bill in Wisconsin, speaking to media outlets like the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Rummel sent the talking points to the personal email of Miller spokesman Mike Browne, but the email turned up in an open records request by the Journal Sentinel because it was forwarded on to Miller’s official email account.

“We’re on the job. The fact is, Wisconsin legislators are sworn to protect people’s rights, not take them away. And we are fulfilling our oath,” one of the talking points reads.
National union spokesman sent talking points to Senate Democrats - JSOnline

Gee Unions giving the Dem's talking points, and amazingly here we have posters parroting them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcDnKQul_c8
 
Last edited:
I might feel more comfortable with unions if they were pro American rather than pro socialism.



 
I might feel more comfortable with unions if they were pro American rather than pro socialism.


That's funny, I might feel more comfortable with the radical conservatives if they were pro American rather than pro fascists.

 
That's funny, I might feel more comfortable with the radical conservatives if they were pro American rather than pro fascists.



Can you tell me what a radical conservative is? Maybe give me a name or two I’ll recognize and explain what makes them radical?
 
I might feel more comfortable with unions if they were pro American rather than pro socialism.





Oh noooo its like the left is pro labor, who woulda thunk?:confused:
Its like somehow being a socialist is somehow become "anti American" in the past 40 years!
 
Oh noooo its like the left is pro labor, who woulda thunk?:confused:
Its like somehow being a socialist is somehow become "anti American" in the past 40 years!

Most democrats aren’t socialists. I know it breaks your heart to hear that but they aren’t. Socialist are in fact anti-American.
 
Most democrats aren’t socialists. I know it breaks your heart to hear that but they aren’t. Socialist are in fact anti-American.

Ohhh no its like i never knew that democrats are not socialists!!!
And its like somehow sense i am a socialist its like i am anti american!!
 
Ohhh no its like i never knew that democrats are not socialists!!!
And its like somehow sense i am a socialist its like i am anti american!!

It is your choice. America has never been socialist. If you want to overthrow our current system and trash the Constitution, I say that makes you anti-American, whether you live in Kansas or Cuba.
 
Elitists? Thugs? Did you say the same thing about Democrats and Obama when they forced the health care law through in similar fashion?


Was that the health care law that contained many parts submitted by Republicans when they were for it before they became against it?
 
Can you tell me what a radical conservative is? Maybe give me a name or two I’ll recognize and explain what makes them radical?

A radical conservative to me is one who is willing to sacrifice worker's rights, health safety and welfare to promote greater corporate influence in local state and federal government and more tax cuts for the rich. Some current examples are Scott Walker, John Kasich, Rick Snyder, Rick Perry, and most of the GOP in Congress today.
To me, that is the path to fascism and I find support for it to be a radical position.
 
Was that the health care law that contained many parts submitted by Republicans when they were for it before they became against it?

Probably. Republicans are always for or against crap when it is politically convenient. Democrats are no different though so we’re basically screwed aren’t we?
 
A radical conservative to me is one who is willing to sacrifice worker's rights, health safety and welfare to promote greater corporate influence in local state and federal government and more tax cuts for the rich. Some current examples are Scott Walker, John Kasich, Rick Snyder, Rick Perry, and most of the GOP in Congress today.
To me, that is the path to fascism and I find support for it to be a radical position.

So what you are really saying is that you consider the US Constitution to be a radical fascist document?!?
 
So what you are really saying is that you consider the US Constitution to be a radical fascist document?!?

How do you get that from what I said? The whole intent of the Constitution is to promote the welfare of We the People, not step on the welfare of the people to promote the Corporation's influence in our government. The Constitution is WHY we fight against fascism.
 
Back
Top Bottom