Should Wisconsin Democrats be paid while they hide out in Illinois?

MaggieD · Feb 24, 2011

Cardinal said:
So if a Democrat majority was pushing through a law to fully fund all organizations performing abortions you'd be cool with it?* Nope, sorry, not buying it.

I don't care what you buy. And, no!!! I wouldn't be for it!!! I wasn't "for" a great deal of what our Democratic Congress pushed down our throats in the last two years. But I can assure you that had my representatives run to Canada I would have thought they were nutz. If you can't be fair....if the only way you think is down party lines....if you can't even comprehend that others have a sense of fairness and ethics...too bad for you. And if too many people in country continue to think that way, well, too bad for all of us.

Cardinal · Feb 24, 2011

MaggieD said:
I don't care what you buy. And, no!!! I wouldn't be for it!!! I wasn't "for" a great deal of what our Democratic Congress pushed down our throats in the last two years. But I can assure you that had my representatives run to Canada I would have thought they were nutz. If you can't be fair....if the only way you think is down party lines....if you can't even comprehend that others have a sense of fairness and ethics...too bad for you. And if too many people in country continue to think that way, well, too bad for all of us.

Again, as you yourself said:

"The Wisconsin legislature cannot filibuster; it's against procedural rules."

That makes all analogies to the Federal congress pointless.

Out of curiosity, if a Wisconsin Democrat majority was trying push through a bill to fully fund all organizations that perform abortions, what would you have wanted your elected representatives to do?

Andalublue · Feb 24, 2011

MaggieD said:
I don't care what you buy. And, no!!! I wouldn't be for it!!! I wasn't "for" a great deal of what our Democratic Congress pushed down our throats in the last two years. But I can assure you that had my representatives run to Canada I would have thought they were nutz. If you can't be fair....if the only way you think is down party lines....if you can't even comprehend that others have a sense of fairness and ethics...too bad for you. And if too many people in country continue to think that way, well, too bad for all of us.

Sorry Maggie, your disingenuousness is reaching some height. Had you not been toeing the official Republican line on this 100%, perhaps we might believe your outrage. I've read quite a lot of your posts on various subjects claiming to be non-partisan, but never once deviating from the conservative line.

If I'm wrong, please give us an example with link.

MaggieD · Feb 24, 2011

Andalublue said:
Sorry Maggie, your disingenuousness is reaching some height. Had you not been toeing the official Republican line on this 100%, perhaps we might believe your outrage. I've read quite a lot of your posts on various subjects claiming to be non-partisan, but never once deviating from the conservative line.

If I'm wrong, please give us an example with link.

I can give you an example with every single post I've made regarding universal healthcare. Go search yourself. I'm also ProAbortion, as you could easily see if you cared to search.

Cardinal · Feb 24, 2011

MaggieD said:
I can give you an example with every single post I've made regarding universal healthcare. Go search yourself. I'm also ProAbortion, as you could easily see if you cared to search.

You're confusing Andalublue with me, and as I already said I was only assuming you were against abortion (although it's rare to find someone who's "pro" abortion), and that if I was wrong you were perfectly free to replace that with an emotional hot button topic for you.

Andalublue · Feb 24, 2011

MaggieD said:
I can give you an example with every single post I've made regarding universal healthcare. Go search yourself. I'm also ProAbortion, as you could easily see if you cared to search.

Okay, I'll concede you don't follow the most right-wing position on every issue. I was going to concede you are probably centrist on social issues, but then encountered this post:

I've always thought that rape (if it's just rape) isn't such a horrible awful crime

Anyway, I'm aware that this is off-topic, so I'd better restrict myself to this issue, on which your position does appear hard right. Perhaps you believe that any extra-congressional action to oppose the passage of the anti-union legislation is undemocratic. I would just point out that the most significant social changes have often been achieved through extra-parliamentary, often illegal actions. Civil rights for women, blacks and gay people and union rights for workers were originally achieved usuing methods that make the Wisconsin Dems action appear very, very mild.

haymarket · Feb 24, 2011

Ockham said:
What rights are those?

Be prepared to cite either the State or Federal Constitution to support your answer. (I heard rumour you are a retired teacher; if true you know the drill.)

Labor rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
enjoy

and this

United States ConstitutionMain article: United States Constitution
While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

cpwill · Feb 25, 2011

jamesrage said:
Are you saying that they are lying about agreeing to pay cuts and paying more for benefits?

no, i am saying they are willing to give ground to suck us into an ambush. giving up temporary benefits matters little so long as you retain the power to pump them right back up in the long term. THAT"s what this is about; as much as it is a this-year budget question, it's a ten-years-from-hence budget question.

You don't think future governors and unions would keep spending cuts?

hell no. and history bears this out.

cpwill · Feb 25, 2011

Cardinal said:
Again, as you yourself said:

"The Wisconsin legislature cannot filibuster; it's against procedural rules."

That makes all analogies to the Federal congress pointless.

Out of curiosity, if a Wisconsin Democrat majority was trying push through a bill to fully fund all organizations that perform abortions, what would you have wanted your elected representatives to do?

vote against them. fillibuster if they can.

but even when they were passing Obamacare; we never called for Republicans to shut down the government over the issue.

cpwill · Feb 25, 2011

Andalublue said:
That makes no logical sense whatever.

of course it doesn't; that's the point. you don't actually save money by trading a small amount of savings today for losing a large amount tomorow.

Union busting has always been an aim of the far right. It appears Walker is intent on using the economic crisis as an excuse to destroy the public sector unions

and let us hope he succeeds. such anti-democratic forces are leeches on our system of free governance, and threaten the viability of our states and municipalities.

cpwill · Feb 25, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
I think you have missidentified their CO. I think their CO are the Dems that elected them. They are doing what they were elected to do, i.e. they are at work.

no, the soveriegn is the people as a body. and the wisconsin people as a body turned them out and put republicans in specifically to take the kind of steps that he is last election. and they are specifically and explicitely not at work.

cpwill · Feb 25, 2011

cpwill said:
no, i am saying they are willing to give ground to suck us into an ambush. giving up temporary benefits matters little so long as you retain the power to pump them right back up in the long term. THAT"s what this is about; as much as it is a this-year budget question, it's a ten-years-from-hence budget question.

as usual, the Hammer puts it better than I ever could:

...Walker understands that a one-time giveback means little. The state’s financial straits — a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years — did not come out of nowhere. They came largely from a half-century power imbalance between the unions and the politicians with whom they collectively bargain.

In the private sector, the capitalist knows that when he negotiates with the union, if he gives away the store, he loses his shirt. In the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largesse in the next election. It’s the perfect cozy setup.

To redress these perverse incentives that benefit both negotiating parties at the expense of the taxpayer, Walker’s bill would restrict future government-union negotiations to wages only. Excluded from negotiations would be benefits, the more easily hidden sweeteners that come due long after the politicians who negotiated them have left. The bill would also require that unions be recertified every year and that dues be voluntary.

Recognizing this threat to union power, the Democratic party is pouring money and fury into the fight. Private unions have shrunk to less than 7 percent of the working population. The Democrats’ strength lies in government workers, who now constitute a majority of union members and provide massive support to the party. For them, Wisconsin represents a dangerous contagion....

doctorhugo · Feb 25, 2011

This is all a bad joke and serious attempt against We The Perople by the Obama insurgency. All one need d is look at how they hit the ground running after he was elected. ObamaCare and Cap and Trade, the two main points of attack on the Americam system and way of life comprised much complicated wording and misdirectional references in the 'actual' bills calculated to confuse. You must ask yor self...WHY? And the answer is that it was all pr-planned as part of a bigger agenda to undermine this system of government and bring us down econoically to pave the way for a latter-day version of Marxian socialism, nothing less.

You know how cozy Obama was with the two biggest union leaders. Why? They were a means to an end. It is NO COINCIDENCE that massive and disruptive protests started in Wisconsin IMMEDIATELY AFTER the men and women that you elected to Congress in November tried desperately to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. And in the days that follow, more protests may break out in a number of states across the nation.

Barack Obama and his far-left allies heard the message you sent in November loud and clear and they are striking back. The chaos in Madison, Wisconsin is precisely the future Barack Obama wishes for every state in the union... it's the "change" he really promised when he campaigned in 2008... because only economic paralysis can pave the way for him to press forward with his extreme socialist agenda.

If you believe that these Wisconsin protests are a local issue... you're sorely mistaken. If you believe that there is some "perfect storm" brewing and that it is a coincidence that the Wisconsin protests are happening now... you're wrong. And if you believe that these protests are, in actuality, about public-sector union employees demanding more of your hard-earned money during a time of extreme economic distress... while the rest of the nation suffers... you're still missing a huge... huge... part of the picture.

These protesters are being used... Joseph Stalin coined the phrase, "useful idiots." These protesters are dupes... pawns in a very dangerous game that Barack Obama is playing with the United States of America. Barack Obama is not siding with the unions for the sake of the children... he's not siding with the unions for the sake of hard-working and dedicated teachers... and he's certainly not doing it for you.

The end-game is the complete and utter destruction of the United States economy and your way of life. Obama and his allies are playing the game to win and each and every American who cherishes freedom and the American way of life MUST do the same. You must not let them get away with it. They must be stopped.

doctorhugo · Feb 25, 2011

haymarket said:
Why is it that there is no category as follows

They should be paid, get a bonus and a medal for Heroism

ANSWER = Because the poll, to be "fair", the ultimate liberal standard, cannot be slanted to idiots with an answer opition as it would then be a prejudicial poll.

Aren't you glad that you asked?:lol::2wave:
****************************************
Btw, I see that like many lefties you love using a "voluntary" database like wikipedia for your source. Not very good as a reliable authority. To wit, this article excerpt:

Authority
by Jim Lengel, Education and Technology Consultant, 02/07/2006

Wikipedia is (was) an example of an unmediated web site. It is an encyclopedia compiled by the voluntary contributions of hundreds of writers and editors. Anyone can write an article and post it to the Wikipedia; anyone else can come along later and edit the article. It's a kind of open, voluntary, work in progress. As such, it's the most up-to-date encyclopedia you'll find. But it's hardly error-free. It relies on its readers (all of whom may be editors) to keep it fresh and accurate. Very democratic. Very useful. But also very dangerous, if you don't understand what you are looking at.

It turns out that the offending biography of Mr. Seigenthaler was contributed by a 38-year-old deliveryman in Tennessee who posted it as a practical joke. It remained posted for four months, until a friend of Seigenthaler's saw it and replaced it with a an accurate article. So the self-policing system worked, but not fast enough to keep inaccurate information from finding its way into many reader's minds. (Wikipedia has since revised its methods to restrict editing and postings to registered members.)

Compare the process of developing the online Wikipedia with that of a traditional reference work such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Britannica, in fact, is compiled from the contributions of hundreds of writers and editors, chosen carefully for their expertise in a certain field. Their articles are carefully reviewed by other experts and editors before they appear in the print or online versions of the encyclopedia. This is an example of a highly mediated work -- lots of eyes and minds examine and modify each article on its way to publication. Thus many people around the world regard Britannica as a respected, authoritative source.

Source: Power to Learn - Authority

No need to thank me as I do this as a public service.

MaggieD · Feb 25, 2011

A Wisconsin Republican Senator was just interviewed on WLS-Chicago. She said rumor has it that the Democratic Senators are raising union money for their campaigns by staying away.

If this is true, then I guess unions are in charge...

cpwill · Feb 25, 2011

MaggieD said:
A Wisconsin Republican Senator was just interviewed on WLS-Chicago. She said rumor has it that the Democratic Senators are raising union money for their campaigns by staying away.

If this is true, then I guess unions are in charge...

i dont' know if it's accurate to say that they are in charge, as much as it is to say that public sector unions and the DNC are now, for practical purposes, not fully distinguishable.

Aunt Spiker · Feb 25, 2011

Andalublue said:
Well, it strikes me that you (and us over here in Europe) are suffering a crisis that was 100% the creation of the private, financial sector. They came running to dip into the public purse to have their debts underwritten by the tax payer, which stupidly the governments decided to do. You are now expecting the public sector workers to soak up the impact of those debts, taken on by the western governments on behalf of, but without consulting, the tax-payers. At the same time, the corporate recipients of those trillions of tax dollars, who haven't yet repaid the bail-outs, are still giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses...and you're getting angry at the firemen, teachers and health workers. I think you need to rethink your values, Maggie.

The government(s) shares the blame equally with the private sector

doctorhugo · Feb 25, 2011

Aunt Spiker said:
The government(s) shares the blame equally with the private sector

Way to go Aunt Spiker. Don't take that bucketfull of bilgewater without splashing it back in his face.
Governments are responsible for setting up the regulatons that control private business and enforcing them. There is NO wiggle-room in that resposibility. They, governments, are also responsible for the monetary policies they follow, business has NO rsponsibility for that. So, mister Andalublue I would suggest that governments are even MORE RESPONSIBLE and this share MORE BLAME than private business.

Matter of fact your knowledge of what precipitated our downfall on this side of the pond is abysmally lacking in knowledge of the truth. Your comment that it's "100% the creation of the private, financial sector" reveals your ignorance.

Over here, in the colonies, Congress makes the laws to control and regulate the money policy. The Fed corrupts that authority and, acting as a quasi-governemnt entity, interjects itself as a wholly unauthorized money policy manager to really direct Treasury Dept policy and when and how much more money to print to devalue our dollar and enable our continuing downfall. "Monetizing of the debt", which the current head of the Fed testified under oath he wouldn't be doing and then did, without facing the bar of justice for such along with "quantitative easing", which is like to call Helicopter Ben's economic suppository only worsened things. The tax-cheat in charge of that Treasury Department the unindicted Timmie Geitner and his senior in command, O-bambi, have colluded to exacerbate the poor policy initiated in the Little Georgie-boy Bush years and corrupted the system with a fervor not seen before. The politicians use their contacts on Wall Street to further enrich and empower themselves whilst all the while assuring the public that all is honkey-dorey. Hell blue, may I call you that for short..., I haven't even mentioned the CRA or Frank or Dodd or no underwriting standards maintained or toxic assets or bad securities or F&F etcetera ad nauseum, but... do believe I've made my point. GOVERNMENT IS THE RAT HIDING IN THE WOODPILE!

Just a thought to you, but given all the problems you have over there in merry olde England maybe you'd be better sticking your political nose deeper into the House of Commons...ay what! (I've got you on my little list now!)

Andalublue · Feb 25, 2011

Aunt Spiker said:
The government(s) shares the blame equally with the private sector

Well, the Bush government does, certainly, as does the Brown administration, not for causing the crisis, but for the knee-jerk protectionist reaction to it which has ensured that the effects of the crash have impacted more on ordinary wage-earners than they have on the guilty speculators. This is unsurprising as the latter pay better kick-backs.

Aunt Spiker · Feb 25, 2011

Andalublue said:
Well, the Bush government does, certainly. As does the Brown administration, not for causing the crisis, but for their knee-jerk protectionist reaction to it which has ensured that the impact of the crash has impacted more on ordinary wage-earners than it has on the guilty financiers. Unsurprising as the latter pay better lick-backs.

Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for the issues in government. They're both in it for shared glory - votes and hoes.

Just like a Conglomerate of corporations and the business oligopolies that dominate the market corners - they work side by side to fix issues and keep everyone else that might be adequate competition for their seats *out* of the picture.

I see both ends of hte spectrum as being vile doers of mass evil - all of our problems are from all of *them* - in order to fix our issues all the old cattle need to be processed out.

haymarket · Feb 25, 2011

cpwill said:
no, the soveriegn is the people as a body. and the wisconsin people as a body turned them out and put republicans in specifically to take the kind of steps that he is last election. and they are specifically and explicitely not at work.

some of the Wisconsin people may have done this if you can show proof that this is what Walker clearly stated he would do if he won the election. At least then we would know that at least a minority of people in Wisconsin knew what they were voting for.

MaggieD · Feb 25, 2011

haymarket said:
some of the Wisconsin people may have done this if you can show proof that this is what Walker clearly stated he would do if he won the election. At least then we would know that at least a minority of people in Wisconsin knew what they were voting for.

As part of his campaign platform, Walker proposed cutting state employee wages and benefits and rolling back 2009 state tax increases on small businesses, capital gains, and income for top earners. Critics said that Walker's proposals would only help the wealthy and that cutting the salaries of public employees would adversely affect state services.[26][27][28] Supporters said that tax cuts for businesses would reduce the cost of labor, which would ultimately promote consumer demand and more job growth.[29] As a candidate, Walker indicated he would refuse an $810 million dollar award from the federal Department of Transportation to build a high speed railroad line from Madison to Milwaukee because he believed it would cost the state $7.5 million per year to operate and would not be profitable.[30] The award was later rescinded and split among other states.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_(politician)

haymarket · Feb 25, 2011

Where is the proof that Walker promised to take the exact Draconian steps with unions that he is now attempting to employ should he get the approval of the Wisconsin legislature? Your post and link failed to provide that.

MaggieD · Feb 25, 2011

haymarket said:
Where is the proof that Walker promised to take the exact Draconian steps with unions that he is now attempting to employ should he get the approval of the Wisconsin legislature? Your post and link failed to provide that.

If you can't read, I can't help you. He's doing EGZAKLY as promised. If you want more information about Governor Walker and what he promised than this link povides, look it up yourself.

haymarket · Feb 25, 2011

MaggieD said:
If you can't read, I can't help you. He's doing EGZAKLY as promised. If you want more information about Governor Walker and what he promised than this link povides, look it up yourself.

I did read it Maggie.

I saw NOTHING in which he promised to take the Draconian steps that he is now doing. But please, prove me wrong by reproducing his exact campaign promises of how he was going to take away the right of unions to engage in collective bargaining as they now have the power to do.

Please.

check this for proof

http://markpocanwi.blogspot.com/2011/02/scott-walkers-top-ten-lies.html

Why is it so vital for you to invent, to create, to manufacture a position that he did not take in the campaign?

Should Wisconsin Democrats be paid while they hide out in Illinois?

Should Wiscnson Democrats be paid while they hide in Illinois?

Yes

No

More options

MaggieD

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Andalublue

Hello again!

MaggieD

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Andalublue

Hello again!

haymarket

cpwill

cpwill

cpwill

cpwill

cpwill

doctorhugo

Active member

doctorhugo

Active member

MaggieD

cpwill

Aunt Spiker

Cheese

doctorhugo

Active member

Andalublue

Hello again!

Aunt Spiker

Cheese

haymarket

MaggieD

haymarket

MaggieD

haymarket