• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?


  • Total voters
    64
Haymarket gets confused on rights regularly. He doesn't seem to realize that no matter what voting is a privilege that only exists because of governments existence.

Do you have trouble reading what the US Constitution actually says?
 
Do you understand the difference in what you just wrote?

Here is a clue: go to my statement in 276 and reproduce the words where I said you supported slavery.

Go for it.

Let my exact words speak for themselves since it is so clear to you and Thrilla.

I expect that you understand when you say to me that the slave owners would be cheering me on that means I would support their claims of slaves. Why else would they be cheering me on? Because I support property?
 
Such as?




Again - personal property rights are a cornerstone of economics.

Does your copy of the Constitution contain Amendments which specifically use the term RIGHT TO VOTE or any other variation of that term RIGHT TO VOTE?
 
Do you have trouble reading what the US Constitution actually says?

Do you have trouble figuring out where government comes from?

If the government is the collective organization of the people and was created by the people nothing that goes with it is a right. It's a bit obvious.
 
Last edited:
Does your copy of the Constitution contain Amendments which specifically use the term RIGHT TO VOTE or any other variation of that term RIGHT TO VOTE?

Go tell felons who can't vote, about their "right to vote."
 
I expect that you understand when you say to me that the slave owners would be cheering me on that means I would support their claims of slaves. Why else would they be cheering me on? Because I support property?

Try again.

It means just what I wrote. That slave owners across the South would cheer you on since your defense of property rights is one of the excuses they gave for their ownership of other human beings.

I clearly stated that THEY would support you. I did not say that YOU supported THEM.

Perhaps that distinction was lost upon both you and Thrilla who also seems to not being able to properly read what is written?
 
Go tell felons who can't vote, about their "right to vote."

Why are you failing to answer the specific question?

Does your copy of the Constitution contain Amendments which specifically use the term RIGHT TO VOTE or any other variation of that term RIGHT TO VOTE?
 
Which is why statist decivilizers hate property rights and do everything in their power to denigrate them. Property rights stand between them and their coveted power over others.
Property rights and the unfettered accumulation of wealth are what give the rich power over others.
 
Do you have trouble figuring out where government comes from?

If the government is the collective organization of the people and was created by the people nothing that goes with it is a right. It's a bit obvious.

The US Constitution - a document which I trust a billion times more than I trust your own pontifications based on extremist ideology and self imposed beliefs - says otherwise.

Several times in fact.
 
Why are you failing to answer the specific question?

Does your copy of the Constitution contain Amendments which specifically use the term RIGHT TO VOTE or any other variation of that term RIGHT TO VOTE?

Nope.

10char
 
Property rights and the unfettered accumulation of wealth are what give the rich power over others.

so what you are saying is you believe in "fettering" the rights of others to accumulate property?
 
The US Constitution - a document which I trust a billion times more than I trust your own pontifications based on extremist ideology and self imposed beliefs - says otherwise.

Several times in fact.

I like how you failed to defend the accuracy of their declaration. I also like how you failed to take notice that its only given to some making it even treated like a privilege after the declaration.
 
The point is that no person has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate aggression against another person or his property.
:lamo What planet are you from? It sure isn't Earth or your species would have died out long, long ago.
 
Whether you belong to an association is irrelevant. If you murder someone, that person's protection agency will come to you looking for compensation. You do not "get off" just because you don't belong to some association.
They will HUNT YOU DOWN!!! :lamo So violence IS alright ... but only under certain circumstances.


When people are pushed to the edge, threatening to take their property or even their life doesn't matter because they have nothing left to lose.
 
which brand of libertarianism are you talking about?
Aren't you guys all the same?!? I constantly see self-professed Libertarians talking about "liberal" this and "liberal" that (or they use their synonym phrase "the left") like all liberals are the same. A recent post of yours is an excellent example, "... unprincipled and unlimited government such as that desired by the left". LOL! You think everyone on "the left" (or anyone short of a few fringe elements on "the left") wants an "unprincipled and unlimited government"?!?


You guys crack me up sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Then things must be much different in other parts of the world than they are here because no non-politician or any group of non-politicians can "take over" the government here.
:) Of course they can - which is why I label this an "effective" ceding of sovereignty rather than a "nominal" one. It's the classic De Toqueville nightmare of concentrated v dissipated interest.
That's just horsecrap you're spewing now. You have no clue what the laws are here or how public employees and public unions are handled.

How many other times have you spread lies in an attempt to prove your point???
 
Last edited:
I like how you failed to defend the accuracy of their declaration. I also like how you failed to take notice that its only given to some making it even treated like a privilege after the declaration.

Could you elaborate on that because I have no idea what you are saying and what it actually has to do with the US Constitution?
 
Try again.

It means just what I wrote. That slave owners across the South would cheer you on since your defense of property rights is one of the excuses they gave for their ownership of other human beings.

I clearly stated that THEY would support you. I did not say that YOU supported THEM.

Perhaps that distinction was lost upon both you and Thrilla who also seems to not being able to properly read what is written?

not one person is fooled by your games Haymarket.
 
I doubt unions will disappear completely. They get a bad rap cause in some professions you *have* to join them, they prioritize job security of horrible teachers for instance over children being able to learn, they favor when layoff time comes certain members based on seniority even though new members pay the same dues etc. Still, as union membership has decreased, so too has income level. There's undoubtedly other factors involved but you can see that here: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/unionincome.jpg

At a nearby factory for example, the temp workers make just 30 cents an hour less than the employees who are hired in. Well, both are near minimum wage without health care, but such a thing would be almost unthinkable back when unions had more power. This is no doubt what Walker had in mind (destroying the middle class) and it's hard to fathom why he got away with it. It seems just another case of fooling people into voting against their own interests. Collectively employees and applicants have more negotiating power than when they have no other entity to represent them. Same with anything else in life.
 
Aren't you guys all the same?!? I constantly see self-professed Libertarians talking about "liberal" this and "liberal" that (or they use their synonym phrase "the left") like all liberals are the same. A recent post of yours is an excellent example, "... unprincipled and unlimited government such as that desired by the left". LOL! You think everyone on "the left" (or anyone short of a few fringe elements on "the left") wants an "unprincipled and unlimited government"?!?


You guys crack me up sometimes.
yes, i'm guilty of generalizing too... and no, libertarians are not all the same.

I tend to point out liberals quite a bit because i'm pretty pissed that folks have co-opted that label who are not liberal.

I happen to like and respect liberalism as an ideology, it's very close to libertarianism .. and it pisses me off that leftist authoritarians ( the opposite of liberals) tend to self describe as liberal 'round here.
due the the nature of the internet and the pack mentality , liberals won't tend to call out their own.... so i do, and yes, i get carried away with it.
 
parasites come in all economic levels. and most working people aren't. its the people who try to gain power by pretending to care about the poor and use their plight as an argument for taking more money from others.

and yeah if you blame others for your lot in life and want others to pay your way that makes you a parasite
You very often use the term "parasite" to mean much more than you're espousing here. Don't be shy, 'fess up!

You have asserted that everyone making under (I believe you latest figure was) $117k is not paying their "fair share". In effect, they are taking money from the government.

You believe everyone getting any government money at all is a parasite (and various other derogatory terms) and it doesn't matter what their beliefs may be - unless they agree with you 100%.
 
yes, i'm guilty of generalizing too... and no, libertarians are not all the same.

I tend to point out liberals quite a bit because i'm pretty pissed that folks have co-opted that label who are not liberal.

I happen to like and respect liberalism as an ideology, it's very close to libertarianism .. and it pisses me off that leftist authoritarians ( the opposite of liberals) tend to self describe as liberal 'round here.
due the the nature of the internet and the pack mentality , liberals won't tend to call out their own.... so i do, and yes, i get carried away with it.

The same exact thing can be said about libertarians, who latched on to the label and have no clue what it is or what its all about...they have their own agenda ...you think libertarians are all purists
 
You very often use the term "parasite" to mean much more than you're espousing here. Don't be shy, 'fess up!

You have asserted that everyone making under (I believe you latest figure was) $117k is not paying their "fair share". In effect, they are taking money from the government.

You believe everyone getting any government money at all is a parasite (and various other derogatory terms) and it doesn't matter what their beliefs may be - unless they agree with you 100%.

MO...turtle is mostly pulling everyones chain...he doesnt mean half of what he says...
 
Back
Top Bottom