• 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

DontDoIt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Umm, health care reform, I know this,

Oh yeah, you mean the insurance ad, encognito as a health care reform.
 
Haymarket, that could possibly be because its a strawman and you're asking for something few if anyone is actually suggesting. Could you point out who is specifically stating he campaigned specifically about Unions?

I have seen people said he campaigned on fiscal responsability, and that this ties in with it because he's attempting to eliminating the thing that helped to contribute to the financial issue in the first place. If you catch a thief that broke into your house and took your stuff, sure you want your stuff back...you also want to change the locks and update the code on yoru security system so that he can't just come in and do it all over again even if he promises he wouldn't do that.

Getting the financial items rolled back with regards to the teacher unions is fiscally responsible on his part. Attempting to remove the tool that would allow them to return the state into a fiscal crisis in short order is also arguably a fiscal issue.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused one bit. You, however, seem to think that while campaigning, a candidate has to discuss everything he intends to propose once elected. That's never happened, and it never will. This is just the straw du jour that the left is grasping at to try and paint this legislation as being illegitimate.
 
j-mac said:
Well, here are two examples....I can only imagine how many more are out there undetected....




j-mac
Click to expand...

The author is not credible in my book:

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer. He has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and before that he wrote articles on U.S. history for several small American magazines. His political columns are featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, BigHollywood.com, and BigJournalism.com, as well as RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, StoptheACLU.com, AmericanDailyReview.com, among many, many others. Mr. Huston is also endlessly amused that one of his articles formed the basis of an article in Germany's Der Spiegel Magazine in 2008.
 
j-mac said:
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
Click to expand...

I told you. Unions are private entities which are created in order to increase the collective bargaining power of the worker so that they can better argue for contractual compensation for their labor than they otherwise could. There's not a government agency for that. There's health codes, safety regulations, and a minimum wage; but that all sets lower bounds on things which are standard. Unions are for the actual worker in the worker's situation with a specific company.
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are jobs which part of the agreement to taking the job is to join the union associated with the job. While there are certainly arguments about whether or not that could be true (functionally, what the democratic spokesmen had said is correct), there is always choice. This is something in the contract you sign when you agree to take the job and exchange your labor for other compensation. It's not like this is something which is sprung on people after they're in the job; it's all up front and in the contract itself. People having the right to contract can agree to the stipulations and accept the contract or disagree with the stipulations and reject the contract.
 
Zyphlin said:
Haymarket, that could possibly be because its a strawman and you're asking for something few if anyone is actually suggesting. Could you point out who is specifically stating he campaigned specifically about Unions?

I have seen people said he campaigned on fiscal responsability, and that this ties in with it because he's attempting to eliminating the thing that helped to contribute to the financial issue in the first place. If you catch a thief that broke into your house and took your stuff, sure you want your stuff back...you also want to change the locks and update the code on yoru security system so that he can't just come in and do it all over again even if he promises he wouldn't do that.

Getting the financial items rolled back with regards to the teacher unions is fiscally responsible on his part. Attempting to remove the tool that would allow them to return the state into a fiscal crisis in short order is also arguably a fiscal issue.
Click to expand...

NO. Its simple and pure. Walker never campaigned on what he ended up doing once in office. He is a right wing stealth candidate who never could have gotten elected if his true colors had been flown.
 
haymarket said:
NO. Its simple and pure. Walker never campaigned on what he ended up doing once in office. He is a right wing stealth candidate who never could have gotten elected if his true colors had been flown.
Click to expand...

He campaigned on fixing the financial issues of the state.

He believes the unions plans to be a financial burden on the state, and seeks to not simply cure the symptoms but actually address the root problem.

The issue is not him doing something other than he campaigned on, its people being upset about HOW he's doing what he campaigned on.
 
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...

Wonders what la la land you live in, since when do politicians do anything but tell the people what they want to hear, I wonder if Obama would have gotten elected, if he had told the public.. . I'm going to pass health care, by passing a bill that no one gets to read .. Or that when he said that the troops would be brought home immediately, that he really meant he was going to do a surge in Afghanistan, and extend that war until 2014 or longer ??

I guess you feel that Obama is all about respect and honesty.
 
haymarket said:
Lincoln never said corporations of the people by the people and for the people. Comparing a government partially intervening in a corporation with Big Government throwing out the elected local government of a city or town is absurd and a rather pathetic and lame attempt to justify the actions of somebody just because they happen to worship before the same altar as you do.

As Robert DeNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER

[
Click to expand...

-chuckles- and your comment on this just goes to show what a political hack you really are, When you stand up and cheer for the government going where it has no business going, just because it happens to agree with your liberal brain, then I don't see where you should be shocked when government uses that same mentality when it goes against your interests.

I see very little difference between the two laws, in the president's law, he is allowed to take over any big business based on nothing but his and the treasure secretaries opinion, with “no” needed evidence to back up what he is doing. Why? For the good of nation?
In the Michigan case, the governor can do much the same thing, He like the president is claiming it's for the good of the state.

Now either you are for government power and takeover or you are not. Apparently your hypocritical self, it's okay in one case because you happen to agree with it, and in the other it's not.

Personally I happen to disagree with both, government intervention where it does not belong is wrong. Now if you happen to disagree with that, thats fine, that is your right as an American citizen, but once you give the government the right to go where it shouldn't, then don't play the hypocritical b*t*h and be whining when that power that “you” gave them is used in a way you don't approve of.
 
You really need to go back and take eight grade civics again.

A President of the USA is an officer of the Federal Government.
A Governor is an officer of a State Government.
They are two very different things and their powers and authority can vary greatly.

There is no such thing as your strawman "government" taking action. There is a very specific level of government and very specfics officers at that level of government. And the powers and duties they have are different and unique.

I did not give your mythical monster... "the government"... the power to do anything.
 
Ikari said:
There are jobs which part of the agreement to taking the job is to join the union associated with the job. While there are certainly arguments about whether or not that could be true (functionally, what the democratic spokesmen had said is correct), there is always choice. This is something in the contract you sign when you agree to take the job and exchange your labor for other compensation. It's not like this is something which is sprung on people after they're in the job; it's all up front and in the contract itself. People having the right to contract can agree to the stipulations and accept the contract or disagree with the stipulations and reject the contract.
Click to expand...

Again I can nearly agree with you, when you are talking private unions concerning a single shop, I would fully agree with you.

But in this case you are talking about an entire state, if someone born and raised in Wisconsin, desires to be a teacher, and not belong to a union, yes they have the choice to move out of state. But that is asking a lot of someone to leave their family, their community, to follow their dream of being a teacher, to me that is a hell of a price to pay.
 
haymarket said:
You really need to go back and take eight grade civics again.

A President of the USA is an officer of the Federal Government.
A Governor is an officer of a State Government.
They are two very different things and their powers and authority can vary greatly.

There is no such thing as your strawman "government" taking action. There is a very specific level of government and very specfics officers at that level of government. And the powers and duties they have are different and unique.

I did not give your mythical monster... "the government"... the power to do anything.
Click to expand...

Laughs, I know the difference between a governor and a president. However they are both elected official.

It's not my problem that you fail to see the parallels in what they are doing, and you can either agree or disagree with what is being done, as stated, I have no problem either way, but to agree with one, and not the other in pure hackery.

You might not like being told that, but the truth is often painful.
 
Ikari said:
I told you. Unions are private entities which are created in order to increase the collective bargaining power of the worker so that they can better argue for contractual compensation for their labor than they otherwise could. There's not a government agency for that.
Click to expand...


My apologies. I didn't see it....My fault. In any case you are correct in the context that the only real concern that Unions function as today is driving cost to businesses with Unions in them through compensation bargaining. Now, it is my understanding that in the case of Public sector Unions, which I know is different than unions in general as far as WI goes Walker has never gone after the collective bargaining for salaries. However, a reasonable step in these times is doing away with that part of benefits packages. Business did it long ago by switching to 401K's and requiring employees to participate in the cost of the health plan they offered. So unless this is just about a NIMBY type of attitude in the case of the WI deal, or worse yet, my opinion pure greed, then Walker is absolutely right in his case.

On Business unions, as I said before some need them, some don't. But to back Unions because you think that it is all about a myriad of things other than pay and benefits today is just not credible in my view.

There's health codes, safety regulations, and a minimum wage; but that all sets lower bounds on things which are standard. Unions are for the actual worker in the worker's situation with a specific company.
Click to expand...

Well, wait. Those arguing ( and I am not saying you here ) for Unionization as a "right" Use these very things to divert from the real goal of pay packages. For example, in the last 20 years, how many strikes resulted over health codes, or safety? As opposed to how many occurred directly tied to compensation?


j-mac
 
haymarket said:
You really need to go back and take eight grade civics again.

A President of the USA is an officer of the Federal Government.
A Governor is an officer of a State Government.
They are two very different things and their powers and authority can vary greatly.
Click to expand...

Please allow me to ask, in your opinion, do the states derive their power from the Federal Government, or is it the other way around, the Federal Government deriving its power from the consent of the states?

There is no such thing as your strawman "government" taking action. There is a very specific level of government and very specfics officers at that level of government. And the powers and duties they have are different and unique.
Click to expand...

Could you explain in detail please?

I did not give your mythical monster... "the government"... the power to do anything.
Click to expand...

If you are active in the process, ie everything from touching the screen at your local voting place, to actively working, and or contributing to a campaign then yes.....you do.

j-mac
 
from The Barbarian

Laughs, I know the difference between a governor and a president. However they are both elected official.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to say that they are both elected officials? Or did you mean to say they were both elected officially? What you said makes no sense as written.

But regardless, it does not matter - every person elected to any position in this land - from the lowest drain commissioner or justice of the peace to mamber of the state or national legislature is an officially elected official.


It's not my problem that you fail to see the parallels in what they are doing, and you can either agree or disagree with what is being done, as stated, I have no problem either way, but to agree with one, and not the other in pure hackery.
Click to expand...

Actually is is your fault because you failed to properly draw any real parallels between the two. You ignore the very idea of federalism and you ignore that the governing documents outlining their powers, duties and obligations are far different and separate. So it is your fault.

You might not like being told that, but the truth is often painful.
Click to expand...

You can tell anyone anything you want to tell them - myself included. And when it makes little or no sense and is based on faulty reasoning and a lack of proper understanding of the way government is structured, functions and is conducted, I will tell you that. Its okay- the truth is often painful. But if you learn from your mistakes, all the better.
 
Last edited:
The judge is a fool and a puppet.
 
haymarket said:
from The Barbarian



Did you mean to say that they are both elected officials? Or did you mean to say they were both elected officially? What you said makes no sense as written.

But regardless, it does not matter - every person elected to any position in this land - from the lowest drain commissioner or justice of the peace to mamber of the state or national legislature is an officially elected official.




Actually is is your fault because you failed to properly draw any real parallels between the two. You ignore the very idea of federalism and you ignore that the governing documents outlining their powers, duties and obligations are far different and separate. So it is your fault.



You can tell anyone anything you want to tell them - myself included. And when it makes little or no sense and is based on faulty reasoning and a lack of proper understanding of the way government is structured, functions and is conducted, I will tell you that. Its okay- the truth is often painful. But if you learn from your mistakes, all the better.
Click to expand...


Haymarket, when you get a chance could you address my questions?

j-mac
 
Is this an problem for the liberals?
"This is a problem. Judge Maryann Sumi should have recused herself entirely from the Wisconsin battle due to her inability to be neutral in this case. You see, Maryann Sumi has a clear conflict of interest. Her son is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. Both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO have members who are public-sector employees in Wisconsin. In fact, as a federation, the AFL-CIO can boast of several member-unions that represent public-sector employees. Maryann Sumi is hardly an unbiased judge in the matter."

"On Friday, unions scored a temporary victory to maintain their ability to collect union dues from Wisconsin public employees when Judge Maryann Sumi (the same judge who refused to order striking teachers back to work in February) issued a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the implementation of Wisconsin’s new law governing public-sector unions."

Wisconsin Judge Maryann Sumi & Her (SEIU, AFL-CIO) Political Operative Son | RedState
 
Candice Lynn said:
The judge is a fool and a puppet.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?


What evidence do you have that he's a puppet?

We know that's the case with the Gov -- (see phone call w/ fake Koch brother) -- we know who pulls his strings. But if you're going to accuse the judge, better have something to back it up.
 
Actually you don't know that Governor Walker is a fool. And if you're going to accuse the Governor, then you'd better have something to back it up with. There have been no laws broken.
 
Patrickt said:
Is this an problem for the liberals?
"This is a problem. Judge Maryann Sumi should have recused herself entirely from the Wisconsin battle due to her inability to be neutral in this case. You see, Maryann Sumi has a clear conflict of interest. Her son is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. Both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO have members who are public-sector employees in Wisconsin. In fact, as a federation, the AFL-CIO can boast of several member-unions that represent public-sector employees. Maryann Sumi is hardly an unbiased judge in the matter."

"On Friday, unions scored a temporary victory to maintain their ability to collect union dues from Wisconsin public employees when Judge Maryann Sumi (the same judge who refused to order striking teachers back to work in February) issued a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the implementation of Wisconsin’s new law governing public-sector unions."

Wisconsin Judge Maryann Sumi & Her (SEIU, AFL-CIO) Political Operative Son | RedState
Click to expand...

The implication of her son having a job being an indication of her ability to be impartial is silly.
 
haymarket said:
from The Barbarian



Did you mean to say that they are both elected officials? Or did you mean to say they were both elected officially? What you said makes no sense as written.

But regardless, it does not matter - every person elected to any position in this land - from the lowest drain commissioner or justice of the peace to mamber of the state or national legislature is an officially elected official.




Actually is is your fault because you failed to properly draw any real parallels between the two. You ignore the very idea of federalism and you ignore that the governing documents outlining their powers, duties and obligations are far different and separate. So it is your fault.



You can tell anyone anything you want to tell them - myself included. And when it makes little or no sense and is based on faulty reasoning and a lack of proper understanding of the way government is structured, functions and is conducted, I will tell you that. Its okay- the truth is often painful. But if you learn from your mistakes, all the better.
Click to expand...

You might fail to see the parallels.... but that doesn't make them non existent.

In the case of the president, he can take over any business he deems (without evidence) to pose a financial risk to the nation.

In the case of Michigan, the governor can take over, *towns or school districts that in he deems to pose a financial risk to the state of Michigan.

I see both those statements as doing the very same thing, giving one person the power to take over, and in my opinion, you can either disagree with both of them, or you can agree with both of them. To agree with one and disagree with the other is just plain and simply hypocritical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom