Plus he's a war criminal and broke he Geneva convention!
That's not a lie. Bush and his cronies DID break the Geneva convention and U.S. law. According to federal law, any pact or international treaty that we enter into and Congress ratifies, carries the full effect of being U.S. law. And since the Geneva Convention is a set of laws about conduct during war. And our ROE is based on the Geneva Convention. Torture is illegal.
When I was on the admiral's staff, we had to make sure everything we did was in accordance with international law and treaties and etc...
Did we torture a member of an opposing military? How do we define what that torture is? Did we rape anyone or cut off their head on the internet? Bamboo under the fingernails?
The Geneva conventions apply to uniformed military combatants. Shooting a wounded terrorist because the last wounded terrorist hid a grenade on his body hardly qualifies. Dealing zero permanent damage to a scumbag who promises the next terrorist attack is imminent, in order to save thousands of civilian lives, is hardly torture under the same auspice as beating someone's name and rank out of them or breaking fingers until you're given troop locations.
How high and mighty are we to judge the folk trying to keep us safe while we sit on the Paizo boards and accuse them of horror. Put you or I in that position, pressure us with the potential of another 9/11, and not one of us can predict how we'd react. Maybe you'd see the light and do what had to be done to save lives. Maybe I'd vomit and cry in a corner rather than face the hardness of the task.
If a bomb had gone off at LAX and we hadn't tried to stop it, there'd be more nutbar allegations that Bush and Cheney let it happen for political expediency. If we're not going to allow our leadership to win either way, I guess it's best they err on the side of saving lives.
Oh. And this has nothing to do with Wisconsin.
Republican's have always hated them, no surprise that this is happening, just now they have a convenient banner to wave about and hope that people support them.
Hopefully they won't. I enjoy my teachers, police, and firemen having SOME quality and leverage.
Look at my first post in this thread, which breaks out what is and is not being attacked.
The Teacher's Union in Wisconsin is being asked to accept the same deal that policemen and legislative staffers get.
The Teacher's protest was larger on the ground. The TEA Party protest was smaller, and better behaved. I saw no Nazi symbolism at the TEA Party Protest, but several swastikas held on signs by teachers.
(Which is bitterly, bitterly ironic, as the National Socialist Party grew out of an organized labor movement. The temptation to ask the union member holding the "Walker is a Nazi!" sign if they taught history was nigh overwhelming.)
Godwin- 4 the Win!
That said, what signs were being held up at the Tea Party protest? I'm sure they weren't sitting there with their hands folded peacefully.
Mostly the Tea Party counterprotest had signs saying "Walker Talks The Talk And Walks The Walk." and similar. My estimate is that the Teacher's Protest I saw had ~30K people. The TEA Party counterprotest was maybe 5-6K people. The weather was also much worse.
Plus he's a war criminal and broke he Geneva convention!
That's not a lie. Bush and his cronies DID break the Geneva convention and U.S. law. According to federal law, any pact or international treaty that we enter into and Congress ratifies, carries the full effect of being U.S. law. And since the Geneva Convention is a set of laws about conduct during war. And our ROE is based on the Geneva Convention. Torture is illegal.
When I was on the admiral's staff, we had to make sure everything we did was in accordance with international law and treaties and etc...
Did we torture a member of an opposing military? How do we define what that torture is? Did we rape anyone or cut off their head on the internet? Bamboo under the fingernails?
The Geneva conventions apply to uniformed military combatants. Shooting a wounded terrorist because the last wounded terrorist hid a grenade on his body hardly qualifies. Dealing zero permanent damage to a scumbag who promises the next terrorist attack is imminent, in order to save thousands of civilian lives, is hardly torture under the same auspice as beating someone's name and rank out of them or breaking fingers until you're given troop locations.
How high and mighty are we to judge the folk trying to keep us safe while we sit on the Paizo boards and accuse them of horror. Put you or I in that position, pressure us with the potential of another 9/11, and not one of us can predict how we'd react. Maybe you'd see the light and do what had to be done to save lives. Maybe I'd vomit and cry in a corner rather than face the hardness of the task.
If a bomb had gone off at LAX and we hadn't tried to stop it, there'd be more nutbar allegations that Bush and Cheney let it happen for political expediency. If we're not going to allow our leadership to win either way, I guess it's best they err on the side of saving lives.
Oh. And this has nothing to do with Wisconsin.
This sums it up, for the most part. For good or ill, you can do whatever you want to anyone else who takes up arms against you as a soldier as part of a miliary action, so long as it holds to some very general guidelines.
Yes, Beck is a racist. I'm sure we all know about his Martin Luther King Debacle, wherein he more or less claimed a very twisted form of succesor-ship to the civil rights movement.
Frankly, all around, people need to become more civil with their discourse. The first step is to remove the pundits from the airwaves, ON BOTH SIDES.
See? It's just so easy? You don't have to be able to defend it. You don't have to have any evidence. You don't have to define bigotry or apply a standard. You just have to chosoe to hate the guy and call him a racist. Simple! In this very thread, we have NO EVIDENCE, but we cna claim that Beck hates Jews AND black people!
How would you respond to the facts that Beck has a rabbi friend who is a guest on his tv show fairly often? That every year he pays some sort of tribute to Dr. King. That he supported Dr. Rice when liberals were portraying her as a house n*gg*r in their cartoons? Have you a response regarding his support for Israel, or his respect for the phrase "content of character"? Do you have any evidence of racial slurs or maybe an endorsement of Dred Scott?
Probably deserves its own thread. But the "Evidence that Beck/Tea Party/conservatives are racists" thread at least will be very short.
I don't necessarily agree with the link, but it has some specifics about similar legislation in OH.
Ohio Senate Republicans move to wipe out collective bargaining for all state workers
Yes, Beck is a racist. I'm sure we all know about his Martin Luther King Debacle, wherein he more or less claimed a very twisted form of succesor-ship to the civil rights movement.
Frankly, all around, people need to become more civil with their discourse. The first step is to remove the pundits from the airwaves, ON BOTH SIDES.
See? It's just so easy? You don't have to be able to defend it. You don't have to have any evidence. You don't have to define bigotry or apply a standard. You just have to chosoe to hate the guy and call him a racist. Simple! In this very thread, we have NO EVIDENCE, but we cna claim that Beck hates Jews AND black people!
How would you respond to the facts that Beck has a rabbi friend who is a guest on his tv show fairly often? That every year he pays some sort of tribute to Dr. King. That he supported Dr. Rice when liberals were portraying her as a house n*gg*r in their cartoons? Have you a response regarding his support for Israel, or his respect for the phrase "content of character"? Do you have any evidence of racial slurs or maybe an endorsement of Dred Scott?
Probably deserves its own thread. But the "Evidence that Beck/Tea Party/conservatives are racists" thread at least will be very short.
You're lashing together organziations and individuals that should perhaps be kept separate from one another in that last sentence, but maybe that thread would not need to be created if you could come up with some information on what debacle blackmer is inferring? A quiet rebuttal would work better than a separate thread, I think.
I can't decide if I'm insulted or amused at the ignorance when people call the Tea Party names and insist they are bad. I am always curious if those people have taken the time to actually learn what the Tea Party represents?First of all, there's a difference between what the "party"* claims to represent and what it's actually doing.
But since you asked, my concerns with the "tea party" are well articulated here.
* As far as I know there is no central "tea party," so it's hard to know exactly what they represent -- or even for whom they are speaking.
Thank you!
RPG Superstar 2013
|
This sums it up, for the most part. For good or ill, you can do whatever you want to anyone else who takes up arms against you as a soldier as part of a miliary action, so long as it holds to some very general guidelines
I don't want to be misunderstood. No one has said we can do whatever we want to whomever we want. The point is that when terrorists dispense with conventioanl conflict and target civilians, letting civilians die out of some fear of reprisal is no more humane than getting your information from the terrorist via two minutes of managed discomfort with a physician nearby. The guy is alive the next day either way. Maybe a thousand other people might not be. And of course it'd be different if the terrorists didn't say things like "this is just the beginning" and "people are going to die and you can't touch me" and "you'll find out soon enough".
There are things that should never be done, and there are things I would accuse our military if I ever thought we did them. But waterboarding for short durations? Turning off the AC? Explaining that al qaeda was using them and their belief to kill innocents? Hardly torture, and hardly outside the spirit of the Geneva Conventions.
Here are the primary things being asked for by Walker:
1) Contributions for health care costs for teachers goes from 2% to 12.4, with intermediate steps for teachers making lower salaries. (In effect, he's making teachers pay as much for their state provided health insurance as legislators and state troopers make, and local school districts can offset this with local expenditures.)
2) Contributions for retirement funding go from 0.3% to 2%. This normalizes the teacher contributions into WRS with what other state employees contribute.
3) Union certification must be put up to an annual vote each year, so that teachers will have to make a conscious decision to remain unionized. This is the standard for state troopers.
4) Union membership will no longer be required to work as a teacher.
5) Unions may not have their dues deducted from teacher's paychecks - they have to get the teachers to cut them a check.
6) Collective bargaining rights will be limited to conditions of workforce safety, salary and choice of health care provisioning, but will no longer include collective bargaining on pensions.The reason for #6) is that the Teacher's Union has been very effective at getting union members full Wisconsin Retirement System pensions with trivial contributions - more so than any other State Employee Union.
There is a germ of truth in one complaint made:
Walker cut tax revenues by giving tax breaks to a couple of firms looking to expand manufacturing; those firms were, yes, Walker contributors during the election, and the on-paper loss of revenues is about $120 million, vice the $137 million that his changes to the teacher's contract situation saves.
That being said, those tax breaks expire after 3 years, and the jobs they should create should generate revenue to offset them over the lifetime of the break, and those tax breaks should generate a few hundred reasonably well paying jobs.
However, on this year's accounting, yes, you can look at the numbers and say "Huh, he paid off his campaign...
Regarding #4, I gather that teaching outside of a charter school for primary and secondary education is currently closed to non union members.
Education is basically a closed shop in WI?
What about post secondary educators?
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
His support for Israel is faith based, in so much that Israel plays a key role in the return of the Messiah. You can be anti-semitic and still support the jewish state as long as your religion requires it. Doesn't make any sense...
With respect, I think that's tremendously acrobatic. Supporting a group even though you hate them because the superiority of your religion requires you to support the inferior reference group?
Or, when liberals characterize people as racists, it shuts down debate and silences pundits, and commonly doesn't have any evidence applied to it.
I'l try to go find these books. Perhaps you also could list them for everyone in attendance?
You're lashing together organziations and individuals that should perhaps be kept separate from one another in that last sentence, but maybe that thread would not need to be created if you could come up with some information on what debacle blackmer is inferring? A quiet rebuttal would work better than a separate thread, I think.
I am just pointing out that calling any conservative pundit or reference group a bigot is en vogue, but hardly in evidence.
|
I can't decide if I'm insulted or amused at the ignorance when people call the Tea Party names and insist they are bad. I am always curious if those people have taken the time to actually learn what the Tea Party represents?
From their site:
Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:
• Limited federal government
• Individual freedoms
• Personal responsibility
• Free markets
• Returning political power to the states and the peopleAs a movement, The Tea Party is not a political party nor is looking to form a third political party any time soon. The Tea Party movement, is instead, about reforming all political parties and government so that the core principles of our Founding Fathers become, once again, the foundation upon which America stands.
** So, how exactly are they bad?
Limiting government - The U.S. was set up on the belief that the larger the government the worse off we are. This belief has been proven repeatedly. The larger the government - the more they are involved in your life, meddling in your Rights, and you pay higher taxes in order to support them.Individual Freedoms - How is protecting our freedoms bad?
Personal responsibility - Shouldn't our elected officials be responsible for their actions? Shouldn't we?
Free market - this seems to be a huge arguing point. Many believe corporations are bad and should pay higher taxes. Have any of you worked for a poor man? Did you know the U.S. already has the 2nd highest corporate taxes in the world? The free market is how America has prospered to where we are now.
Returning political power to the states and the people - the U.S. was set up so the federal government had limited power. The majority of the power is suppose to lay in the hands of the individual states and its citizens. However, each year the federal government grows larger and stronger - meddling more and more in affairs of the public that they have no business in....
Okay, NOW I *gotta* get involved.
Have you read up on the founding fathers? You do know that not even THEY agreed on the items you listed. I mean, it took two YEARS for all the states to finally agree and ratify the constitution as a whole. And it only required nine states to be ratified, so the last four (Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island) weren't even needed to establish the constitution (and their Congress seats were vacant until they DID ratify it--No taxation without representation?)
George Washington and John Adams were both Federalists. They both believed in a centralized national government and that more Federal power was a good thing.
In regards to your points:
|
|
Indeed. This seems to be a rather sizeable loophole. What if EVERYONE did this?
Even though this seems extreme I think they are using the only option the rules have left them. Some of them may consider collective bargaining a basic human right; if so then I don't think this is an unreasonable or unlawful tactic.
I'm torn. Maybe they're simply doing what the must in the context of the established system, but I have to question rules that allow the system to be shutdown so easily.
Then you have the US Senate, where legislation goes to die. There, this bill could be filibustered- same end result.
This sums it up, for the most part. For good or ill, you can do whatever you want to anyone else who takes up arms against you as a soldier as part of a miliary action, so long as it holds to some very general guidelinesI don't want to be misunderstood. No one has said we can do whatever we want to whomever we want. The point is that when terrorists dispense with conventioanl conflict and target civilians, letting civilians die out of some fear of reprisal is no more humane than getting your information from the terrorist via two minutes of managed discomfort with a physician nearby. The guy is alive the next day either way. Maybe a thousand other people might not be. And of course it'd be different if the terrorists didn't say things like "this is just the beginning" and "people are going to die and you can't touch me" and "you'll find out soon enough".
There are things that should never be done, and there are things I would accuse our military if I ever thought we did them. But waterboarding for short durations? Turning off the AC? Explaining that al qaeda was using them and their belief to kill innocents? Hardly torture, and hardly outside the spirit of the Geneva Conventions.
I am sure I will be crucified for this - as I am on everything. lol! But - I am more than willing to torture a few terrorist if it may save a few thousand American lives.
On the same note: Many complain about the cost of the war and how many American lives it has cost. Please, take a moment to remember what those towers looked like when they fell and how you felt. Everyone screamed for blood - which is why we went to war. Now, 11 years later, that scene seems to have faded from many peoples minds and the torture of some terrorists is no longer worth saving American lives.
As far as lives - I feel for the families of those fallen American soldiers but those men and women joined the military because they believe in America and what we were doing. They knowingly sacrificed their lives so you could be free and safe. Besides the point - the cost in American lives annually in this war is less than the annual murder rate in Detroit.
How many lives and how much money will it be worth next time when the next time may kills thousands via a suitcase nuclear device in the middle of a city?
This sums it up, for the most part. For good or ill, you can do whatever you want to anyone else who takes up arms against you as a soldier as part of a miliary action, so long as it holds to some very general guidelinesI don't want to be misunderstood. No one has said we can do whatever we want to whomever we want. The point is that when terrorists dispense with conventioanl conflict and target civilians, letting civilians die out of some fear of reprisal is no more humane than getting your information from the terrorist via two minutes of managed discomfort with a physician nearby. The guy is alive the next day either way. Maybe a thousand other people might not be. And of course it'd be different if the terrorists didn't say things like "this is just the beginning" and "people are going to die and you can't touch me" and "you'll find out soon enough".
There are things that should never be done, and there are things I would accuse our military if I ever thought we did them. But waterboarding for short durations? Turning off the AC? Explaining that al qaeda was using them and their belief to kill innocents? Hardly torture, and hardly outside the spirit of the Geneva Conventions.
Not at all trying to mischaracterise you in any way, at least not intentionally. I was referring solely to the Geneva Conventions, which are very clear in that they specify uniformed enemy combatants under their auspices. And "managed discomfort"? Come on man, that's a slippery slope if I ever heard one. Better to say "rough interrogation".
His support for Israel is faith based, in so much that Israel plays a key role in the return of the Messiah. You can be anti-semitic and still support the jewish state as long as your religion requires it. Doesn't make any sense...With respect, I think that's tremendously acrobatic. Supporting a group even though you hate them because the superiority of your religion requires you to support the inferior reference group?
Or, when liberals characterize people as racists, it shuts down debate and silences pundits, and commonly doesn't have any evidence applied to it.
I'l try to go find these books. Perhaps you also could list them for everyone in attendance?
I see where you are coming from, Helt, but I have known people in my personal life who have felt the way Sanakht illustrates. Conversations with such individuals are headache-inducing, but yeah..they're out there.
You know if I walk out of my job like that... I loose my job...Although I assume you weren't elected? One has to be careful with the summary dismissal of elected officials.
But at the very least a process should be in place for the suspension (or temporary replacement) for the chronically absent.
How about social workers, teachers, and administrators?
Sanakht, let's avoid rhetoric like "sink to the level of the terorrists if you like". No one cut off anyone's heads on the internet. No one was raped or forced to read a message that if al qeada doesn't get their terrorist's out of our country they'll be killed. There is in no way any sinking to the level of terorist dogs.
We didn't go to war with 'Afghanistan', nor torture members of the Afghan military in order to prevent attacks on soldiers or gain military data. We waterboarded or berated terrorists who claimed to know something about pending attacks. By engaging, we either learned enough information to stop attakcs, or we forced the abandonment of attacks because the terrorists had compromised agents.
I suppose we could promise the world that no matter how many civilians get killed, we will only incarcerate captured terrorists and not try to get information out of them. Since in order to accuse a fromer president we are willing to call yelling and not allowing baths 'torture', there's nothing we can do that doesn't violate someone's idea of enhanced interrogation.
Ooh. Or when you murder civilians without a uniform, you could be stripped of whatever protection you feel entitled to. After all, the people left jumping out of the world trade center as their only hope for survival may have been deprived of their rights, too.
On Fleeing The Senate:
There is historical precedence on fleeing assemblies in this country going back to at least the 1820s. While an Illinois State Senator, Abraham Lincoln broke a window and leapt from a second floor office to avoid being empaneled for a vote!
However, this is very very likely to backfire for the Democrats. The campaign ads in 2012 will highlight "Senator so and so actually showed up for work, and voted, even when he knew he was going to lose. He didn't run to Chicago to hang out with the Chicago elites - he rolled up his sleeves and went to work for the people of Wisconsin."
I also got to see the protests in Madison (and the counterprotest)
The Teacher's protest was larger on the ground. The TEA Party protest was smaller, and better behaved. I saw no Nazi symbolism at the TEA Party Protest, but several swastikas held on signs by teachers.
(Which is bitterly, bitterly ironic, as the National Socialist Party grew out of an organized labor movement. The temptation to ask the union member holding the "Walker is a Nazi!" sign if they taught history was nigh overwhelming.)
Godwin- 4 the Win!
That said, what signs were being held up at the Tea Party protest? I'm sure they weren't sitting there with their hands folded peacefully.
Any large group will presumably have elements that most would consider extreme, but there certainly does seem to be a stark contrast in how the MSM portrays these protests and the tea party protests.
Ashe Ravenheart -
1) I am so glad you can tell us what the Founding Fathers thoughts were. I wasn't psychically asking them - I was going off the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
2) Totally agree. And?
3) Yes, if he did if fact break the law than yes he should be held accountable. Do you not think people should be held accountable for their actions?
4) Are you seriously suggesting the free market is a bad thing? Especially due to something that happened in 1789?
5) I'm not even going to dignify your referral to the Civil War other than - where did that come from and why?
How about social workers, teachers, and administrators?
Surely that goes without saying? I am a little puzzled at the question.
Oh man. This gets richer and richer. The irony is almost painful. Acrobatic even.
I was hoping we could achieve this place where you and I just ignored one another. If you don't have anything to contribute, maybe you could have the class not to make reference to me? If we were in a room together, your snide remakrs would jsut be considered rude.
I'm asking nicely, how about we discuss issues like grownups or we don't acknowledge one another at all. That's not too much to ask.
As regards Freehold - I don't imply you mischaracterized me. I knwo it's atricky subject and I definitely don't want to be confused as saying anything goes. Regarding the slippery slope, I see your point. I guess I meant that waterboarding is more carefully guarded discomfort than actual painful torture. You get a doctor, a time limit, and all that jazz. I'm not saying it's desirable or comfortable or should be used in any but the most extreme circumstances. I am saying it isn't torture compared to what other cultures have done, for military information rahter than to protect civilians from animals.
And McCain had his arms broken and worse, and not in any way to protect civilians from death or terrorism. If a man is hard enough to plot the death of thousands, he can handle being leaned on by those who would prevent those deaths. If it stay with hyim the rest of his life, he can only blame himself. I wonder how many families on 9/11 are over their losses.
..... Frankly, all around, people need to become more civil with their discourse. The first step is to remove the pundits from the airwaves, ON BOTH SIDES.
What do you mean by, " The first step is to remove the pundits from the airwaves, ON BOTH SIDES."?
Play nice in the political threads.
That is all.
I don't know if this is true or not, but appareantly if there's no vote in WI on this matter (passing the budget) soon, state gov't workers are going to be layed off.
This is kind of a win/win for Walker.
If the Dem's come back and vote, the teacher's union colelctive bargaining will be limited to the same as all other state workers: win.
If they don't and he has to fire teachers, he can hire non-union teachers to replace them. Sure, they could in fact unionize later, but they'll have no bargaining leg to stand on. They'd be starting from scratch, and at most will only get what other state workers unions get: win.
This is probably why there's no hurry for the truant legislators to be rounded up.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Heh. I'm not one to believe in evil or god, but I find these posts to be sufficient evidence of the former that I start yearning for the later...
I'll stop responding as soon as you stop making gross mischarcterizations and acknowledge facts that don't already support your beliefs. Deal?
In Wisconsin, the law is that they can send the cops to go round up absentee legislators and bring them back to make them be present for a vote. That's why the Democrats in Wisconsin had to leave the state.
They didn't "have" to leave the state. They could have , oh I don't know, just stayed and did the job they were elected to do and are geting paid to do.
Not at all trying to mischaracterise you in any way, at least not intentionally. I was referring solely to the Geneva Conventions, which are very clear in that they specify uniformed enemy combatants under their auspices. And "managed discomfort"? Come on man, that's a slippery slope if I ever heard one. Better to say "rough interrogation".
The provisions and protections of the Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed combatants, and 'freedom fighters' prominently wearing symbol of affiliation that cannot be mistaken for an ordinary item of dress.
The forces engaged in Afghanistan generally do NOT qualify for this.
Forces engaged in combat that do not meet either of these requirements may be summarily executed on the spot.
It can be argued, with decent backing, that they do not qualify under the Prisoners of War provisions.
That being said, we have effectively accorded them the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the waterboarding technique is technically legal, though it should not be, and it was legal when it was done.
Am I happy that it was done? Not in the least. Do I think Bush regrets it? He's as much as said so. Do I think there's legal grounds for war crimes? Only in the fevered imaginations of those who still wish he were a public figure to hate.
How about social workers, teachers, and administrators?Surely that goes without saying? I am a little puzzled at the question.
Should it be illegal to replace striking public sector workers?
If most of us in the private sector strike we risk losing our jobs. Should public sector employees be treated the same in that regard?
I'm not sure if the post you replied to was referring to the Democratic legislators or the state workers.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
As for the books he mentions: Any written by Skousen, with special attention to The 5,000 Year Leap. Then there is Edith (can never remember her first name) Dillenger's 1930's work on communism.
He also throws out a lot of books that are revisionist in nature. His primary source is "Dr." Barton. Barton is not a doctor. Nor does he have a PhD. He has a BA. And even other CONSERVATIVE historians have discredited a lot of his work.
Barton has a wealth of dicuments that support his beliefs about our history. I'm not willing to dispute that other historians disagree, but calling him revisionistic is very conventient for a secular, deconstructionist crowd.
My wife read the 5000 Year Leap. She hates racists. She didn't comment on any antiSemitism, and she;s pretty bright. My parents both read it, giving it away fanatically, and my dad is maybe the most intellectually honest person I know. He knows I despise bigotry and still thinks I'd enjoy the book. It's two marriage books, the major prophets, Broke, and my contracted writing work away from being at the top of my list. For now. : }
Talk of racism leaves me stuck. I hear about my own bigotry over and over again, and I hear those accusations about others without evidence. So I am loathe to accept a book or an author is a bigot without reading it myself. After a year of healthcare opponents opposing the bill becaue they are racists, that word just doesn't mean anything. It fills me with revulsion, but for different reasons now. I mean, Harry Reid can say Obama is electable because he's a clean negro, and I don't hear much flak. I am unlikely to give any cred to claims of conservative bigotry until actually see some.
Heh. I'm not one to believe in evil or god, but I find these posts to be sufficient evidence of the former that I start yearning for the later...
I'll stop responding as soon as you stop making gross mischarcterizations and acknowledge facts that don't already support your beliefs. Deal?
I guess not. Since your standard is that my beliefs are wrong regardless and your entertainment is paramount to civil discourse, I don't think either of us are capable of living up to your offer.
Let those assembled know I tried. And then stopped caring.
[SIDE NOTE] You don't respond to anything. You throw a jab to please yourself and don't address claims or arguments. What an awful waste of your own time.
Should it be illegal to replace striking public sector workers?
If most of us in the private sector strike we risk losing our jobs. Should public sector employees be treated the same in that regard?
I'm not sure if the post you replied to was referring to the Democratic legislators or the state workers.
I don't believe that replacing any striking workers, public or private, should be illegal. Did I give this impression?
I do believe that preventing people from unionizing (or to firing them if they do) should be illegal.
|
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/governor_walkers_office_ confir.html
Someone got on the phone with governor walker. Interesting call.
I liked:
* Walker reveals that he and other Republicans are looking at whether they can charge an "ethics code violation if not an outright felony" if unions are paying for food or lodging for any of the Dem state senators.
Amusing when contrasted with:
FAKE KOCH: Well, I'll tell ya what, Scott. Once you crush these bastards, I'll fly ya out to Cali and really show you a good time.
WALKER: Alright. That would be outstanding. Thanks for all the support and helping us move the cause forward.
I don't know if this is true or not, but appareantly if there's no vote in WI on this matter (passing the budget) soon, state gov't workers are going to be layed off.
This is kind of a win/win for Walker.
If the Dem's come back and vote, the teacher's union colelctive bargaining will be limited to the same as all other state workers: win.
If they don't and he has to fire teachers, he can hire non-union teachers to replace them. Sure, they could in fact unionize later, but they'll have no bargaining leg to stand on. They'd be starting from scratch, and at most will only get what other state workers unions get: win.This is probably why there's no hurry for the truant legislators to be rounded up.
Doesn't current WI law or the last CB contract require that layoffs be conducted on the basis of seniority?
I'm not sure there is any money to replace the laid off teachers in the short term, and I'm not sure the current contract allows any teachers to be hired outside of the current CB contract.
I think they should just raise rational awareness. Not popular, I know.
I don't know if this is true or not, but appareantly if there's no vote in WI on this matter (passing the budget) soon, state gov't workers are going to be layed off.
This is kind of a win/win for Walker.
If the Dem's come back and vote, the teacher's union colelctive bargaining will be limited to the same as all other state workers: win.
If they don't and he has to fire teachers, he can hire non-union teachers to replace them. Sure, they could in fact unionize later, but they'll have no bargaining leg to stand on. They'd be starting from scratch, and at most will only get what other state workers unions get: win.This is probably why there's no hurry for the truant legislators to be rounded up.
Doesn't current WI law or the last CB contract require that layoffs be conducted on the basis of seniority?
I'm not sure there is any money to replace the laid off teachers in the short term, and I'm not sure the current contract allows any teachers to be hired outside of the current CB contract.
Well, the thought was replacing 1 crappy 50k per year teacher with 2 decent 25k teachers is better bang for the buck...but maybe they don't have the money for that either.
I forgot the possibility of the CB contract not allowing non-union teachers.
Well, the thought was replacing 1 crappy 50k per year teacher with 2 decent 25k teachers is better bang for the buck...but maybe they don't have the money for that either.
Why stop there? They could hire 10 AMAZING teachers for 5k each!
Kidding aside, why does it seem so hard for some people to understand that if you want to hire and retain talented, well-educated people, you should expect to compete for them? I flirted with the idea of becoming a teacher once...until I learned I'd make LESS THAN HALF of what I made at the time. I literally couldn't afford to be a teacher.
I don't know if this is true or not, but appareantly if there's no vote in WI on this matter (passing the budget) soon, state gov't workers are going to be layed off.
This is kind of a win/win for Walker.
If the Dem's come back and vote, the teacher's union colelctive bargaining will be limited to the same as all other state workers: win.
If they don't and he has to fire teachers, he can hire non-union teachers to replace them. Sure, they could in fact unionize later, but they'll have no bargaining leg to stand on. They'd be starting from scratch, and at most will only get what other state workers unions get: win.This is probably why there's no hurry for the truant legislators to be rounded up.
You raise some intresting points. I had not considered whether or not the state would be unable to operate. Your right in the fact that it's a win/win for the current administration because the state workers will either be laid off if no budget is in place OR the unions will have to accept a much more limited and equal role within their state.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/governor_walkers_office_ confir.html
Someone got on the phone with governor walker. Interesting call.
I liked:
* Walker reveals that he and other Republicans are looking at whether they can charge an "ethics code violation if not an outright felony" if unions are paying for food or lodging for any of the Dem state senators.
Amusing when contrasted with:
FAKE KOCH: Well, I'll tell ya what, Scott. Once you crush these bastards, I'll fly ya out to Cali and really show you a good time.
WALKER: Alright. That would be outstanding. Thanks for all the support and helping us move the cause forward.
Wow. Snippets of a rumored phone call illegally recorded under false pretesnes, during which the governor didn't say or advocate anything illegal. I have totally changed my position about unionizing state employees and the state sentae abandoning their posts to protest a measure that was mandated by the people during the last election.
|
|
Illegally recorded?
If the person who records the wire, electronic, or oral communication is a party to the conversation or has obtained prior consent from one party, he may lawfully record and divulge the contents of the communication, unless he does so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Wis. Stat. § 968.31
Rumoured? Unless the washington post is lying, the governors office confirmed that the call was real.
False pretenses I would agree with. And I don't think its a series of world shaking revelations, I just think its interesting. It is not often that you get to hear that sort of planning outside of a west wing episode.
Interesting news article with regards to civility, public servants and extreme rhetoric.