• 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!

Poll: Wis. gov. has slight edge in approval rating

linking to an article requiring registration is pretty pathetic.
Um, it doesn't. I'm not registered and I can see it perfectly. What's pathetic is that your posts argue against points that haven't been made.

how about in your own words, you defend this idiocy
What idiocy? The idiocy of you accusing me of making arguments about 'unlawful' whatever when I made no such argument? How about you address what I actually said as you've avoided all of my actual points since you presumably are incapable of addressing them?
 
Um, it doesn't.

this is what your link shows me:


Please Log In
PLEASE LOG IN

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account »

E-Mail or Member ID
Password
Forgot Password?
Remember Me

Contact Us

NYTimes.com »
Home Delivery »
 
What idiocy? The idiocy of you accusing me of making arguments about 'unlawful' whatever when I made no such argument? How about you address what I actually said as you've avoided all of my actual points since you presumably are incapable of addressing them?


You said the removal of rights makes it worse.

Now please explain how a simple majority of voters can strip someone of a right.
 
FFS, rights are absolute and cannot be bargained. The unions have no 'rights' beyond the limits of contracts. If anyone can show me where these 'rights' are expressed in the Constitution I will accept the argument. Otherwise, hell no!
 
FFS, rights are absolute and cannot be bargained. The unions have no 'rights' beyond the limits of contracts. If anyone can show me where these 'rights' are expressed in the Constitution I will accept the argument. Otherwise, hell no!
None of this is true. Your attempting to define rights solely according to definition that hardly anybody in the United States accepts and that no government in the United States abides by.
 
So any human can publish an article using the term rights, and that’s all it takes for you?

Well it looks like the author is a liar, since I found an article saying he is a liar.

What’s good for the goose….
What is this comment? You are in a thread about Governor Walker. The entire controversy surrounding him is about collective bargaining rights. Why is this so confusing for you?
 
None of this is true. Your attempting to define rights solely according to definition that hardly anybody in the United States accepts and that no government in the United States abides by.
Can you tell me what rights I have beyond those enshrined in the Constitution? Do others have rights that I don't have?
 
Can you tell me what rights I have beyond those enshrined in the Constitution? Do others have rights that I don't have?
I can't believe you're asking this question.

under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
What is this comment? You are in a thread about Governor Walker. The entire controversy surrounding him is about collective bargaining rights. Why is this so confusing for you?

Wow progressives have it easy in regards to debate

They first call something that isn’t a constitutional right a right. Then try to pretend this made up thing has all the power of actual government recognized rights.

That is exactly what you are doing. Your entire defense is now based on the notion that things are worse because progressives assigned the label “right” to a power they were granted, then revoked.
 
QUOTE=ThePlayDrive;1060147968]I can't believe you're asking this question.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious? Did you read he decision? Do you know what state I live in? Not a fair question under the circumstances, I understand. Still, your response is disingenuous and pretty ditzy.

Union 'rights' are not in fact rights by any constitutional standard. Workers' rights are indeed protected by law. Therein lies the distinction.
 
Last edited:
Are you serious? Did you read he decision? Do you know what state I live in? Not a fair question under the circumstances, I understand. Still, your response is disingenuous and pretty ditzy.

Union 'rights' are not in fact rights by any constitutional standard. Workers' rights are indeed protected by law. Therein lies the distinction.
Do I know what state you live in? Well, your info to the left says that you live in the Czech Republic which isn't a state...

In any case, collective bargaining rights are the topic of conversation and those are determined by law, so your earlier attempt to pretend that rights are only located in the Constitution is stupid, to say the least.
 
This is where you fail every time. Many rights exist outside of the Constitution.

If it isn’t protected by rule of law, it is purely semantics.

Progressives call some things right as a tool to effect change. That is what you are doing, nothing more.
 
Yup, there is a definite difference between rights assigned in the Constitution and the negotiated rights in contracts. Making a concession in a contract by no means mean the concession is for perpetuity, rather it is valid until the contract expires. There is a certain inability on the part of leftist to accept what should probably be obvious. They have no 'rights' beyond that.
 
Yup, there is a definite difference between rights assigned in the Constitution and the negotiated rights in contracts. Making a concession in a contract by no means mean the concession is for perpetuity, rather it is valid until the contract expires. There is a certain inability on the part of leftist to accept what should probably be obvious. They have no 'rights' beyond that.

You're exactly right. Too many people think that when a teacher is hired into the system under a 3-year contract they are, as you say, going to receive exactly those benefits (or more) as long as they are employed. A three-year contract is just that. A three-year contract.
 
Taxpayers' rights and workers' rights can coexist. The foolish attempt by some to make this a question of either/or is stupid.

Sorry to burst your bubble sport. This is about municipal unions. Municipal Unions that FDR and George Meany said were as a cancer on the Republic. As did LaGuardia. They are corrupt. They survive via extortion and payola. And the average working taxpayer is sick of these teat-sucking moochers.
 
It looks like the public unions don't have quite the support they imagine. Since elections in WI are typically tight, I would expect that once the union picked candidate is known and starts making a name through advertising, the polls will tighten up. But for now, unions have to be worried and doing their best to discredit this.





Poll: Wis. gov. has slight edge in approval rating - Yahoo! News

You realize this poll was paid for by the Koch brothers who rigged the outcome right? Because 1,000,000,000 fully legitimate, valid signatures from Wisconsinites say they want him to go so there is no way he not hated by all.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble sport. This is about municipal unions. Municipal Unions that FDR and George Meany said were as a cancer on the Republic. As did LaGuardia. They are corrupt. They survive via extortion and payola. And the average working taxpayer is sick of these teat-sucking moochers.
I'm not sure how you think sharing your opinion is 'bursting my bubble'. Nothing that you said affected my opinion either way.
 
If it isn’t protected by rule of law, it is purely semantics.

Progressives call some things right as a tool to effect change. That is what you are doing, nothing more.
I'm not calling things right. I'm calling them rights. And they are rights and your earlier attempt to pretend that Constitutional rights are the only rights is still wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom