Those on the Left, in here...

[Yonivore]

...must really be proud of the "new civility" on display in Wisconsin.

Justice Department investigating death threats against Republican senators, representatives (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117738098.html)


"This is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assault [sic] you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn't enough. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message. So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent..."

And, of course, there was the reasonable response to the Wisconsin Senate...

ol8O0iKDCwg

I think Michael Moore even declared war. :lmao

Gosh! This all reminds me of how the Tea Party and Republicans stormed the Capitol and threatened to kill Democrats when they used rules -- instead of a vote -- to advance Obamacare out of Congress.

Wait! That didn't happen.

You all must be so proud.

[Yonivore]

I noticed how President Obama jumped out there and called for an end to the inflammatory rhetoric. Very presidential...

Wait! That didn't happen either.

In fact, if anything, our President is the cause of this madness. His organization is the one fomenting the hate and organizing the protesters.

[George Gervin's Afro]

didn't bachman refer to the administation as a' gangsta administration'? did you miss that?

[Yonivore]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/statepage?state=WI

Yep. Sure enough, President If-they-bring-a-knife-we-bring-a-gun-if-they-punch-us-we-will-punch-back-twice-as-hard, has his Organizing for America gang -- well -- organizing.

[Yonivore]

didn't bachman refer to the administation as a' gangsta administration'? did you miss that?
Considering his involvement in Wisconsin and his lack of action in the face of the threats and violence, that's kind of bearing out, don't you think?

[ChumpDumper]

Gosh! This all reminds me of how the Tea Party and Republicans stormed the Capitol and threatened to kill Democrats when they used rules -- instead of a vote -- to advance Obamacare out of Congress.

Wait! That didn't happen.

You all must be so proud.There were death threats.

Not surprised you missed them. I doubt your blogs covered them, being as fucktardedly partisan as you are.

[ChumpDumper]

Considering his involvement in Wisconsin and his lack of action in the face of the threats and violence, that's kind of bearing out, don't you think?No.

You're an idiot.

[ManuBalboa]

lol chump calling someone a partisan hack

I didn't see any black people in that Union Crowd. Unions are obviously racist extremists who pile in state capitals through windows.

[DMX7]

How many of them were nearly assassinated?

[ChumpDumper]

lol chump calling someone a partisan hack

I didn't see any black people in that Union Crowd. Unions are obviously racist extremists who pile in state capitals through windows.lol who are you?

[Marcus Bryant]

When crap like this pops up why can't we just chalk it up to being from a nut and be done with it? I guess the immediate partisan 'score' is worth it.

[Stringer_Bell]

I hope Eric Holder (aka America's Stedman Graham) will get on top of this and go after whoever pulled this shit Waco style.

[Marcus Bryant]

croutons sends an email and Yonivore posts it like it's news.

[RandomGuy]

...must really be proud of the "new civility" on display in Wisconsin.

...

You all must be so proud.

You are one of the most hypocritical, partisan fucks I have ever had the misfortune to meet. "consider this" my ass.

"i want to make nice" then you turn around at every opportunity and shit on people who don't agree with you in threads like this and so many others.

You are the epitome of the intellectual and moral rot that underlies the vaneer of modern conservatism.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I didn't see any black people in that Union Crowd. Unions are obviously racist extremists who pile in state capitals through windows.

:lol you know. I think I saw nothing but whitey as well. Oh, well. Quit believing your lying eyes.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

vaneer of modern conservatism.

Vaneer?

Veneer, maybe?

[boutons_deux]

Here's some Repug civility, unmatched by anything from the Dem legislators:

NH GOP Senator Says The Mentally Ill Are ‘Defective People’ That Should Be Shipped Off To Siberia

Barrington Republican Martin Harty told Sharon Omand, a Strafford resident who manages a community mental health program, that “the world is too populated” and there are “too many defective people,” according to an e-mail account of the conversation by Omand. [...]

Harty confirmed to the Monitor that he made the comments to Omand. [...]

Omand says Harty then stated, “I wish we had a Siberia so we could ship them all off to freeze to death and die and clean up the population.” Omand said Harty appeared to be serious. After Omand responded that his idea sounded like what Adolf Hitler did in World War II, Omand said Harty responded, “Hitler did something right, and I agree with (it).”


http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/11/gop-senator-siberia/

=======

And this eugenics-loving, "empathetic" mofo is not even from TX :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I wish we had a Siberia so we could ship them all off to freeze to death and die and clean up the population.That would be New Hampshire.

[ManuBalboa]

No fat redneck rally pictures? C'mon now!







































http://www.politifake.org/image/political/small/1102/unions-are-being-starved-seiu-sucks-unions-suck-libs-suck-fa-political-poster-1298264016.jpg

[DarrinS]

So this so-called union busting and stripping of collective bargaining rights turned out to be just raising their pension contributions from 1% to 5.8% (just below national average) and increasing their health care contributions from 6% to 12% (less than half the national average)?


I can certainly understand the hysteria. :sleep



EDIT> Well, except for cops and firemen. <-- disclaimer for CumDumpster's benefit

[DarrinS]

And why are they so white?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/03/12/alg_protesters.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

So this so-called union busting and stripping of collective bargaining rights turned out to be just raising their pension contributions from 1% to 5.8% (just below national average) and increasing their health care contributions from 6% to 12% (less than half the national average)?That was already agreed to without taking away the collective bargaining rights on those issues.

Why did those rights have to be taken away if the governor had already gotten the monetary concessions he wanted?

[clambake]

And why are they so white?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/03/12/alg_protesters.jpg

why are 12 white people so white?

[RandomGuy]

Vaneer?

Veneer, maybe?

Indeed? I stand corrected.

Yonivore is not the epitome of the intellectual and moral rot that underlies the vaneer of modern conservatism.

Rather he is the epitome of the intellectual and moral rot that underlies the veneer of modern conservatism.

Thank you.

[ChumpDumper]

why are 12 white people so white?That group is roughly the same size as Cairo University's class of 2010.

[Blake]

And why are they so white?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/03/12/alg_protesters.jpg

I dunno....why is that guy in the very far left of the picture so white?

[ChumpDumper]

I dunno....why is that guy in the very far left of the picture so white?:lmao

He's obviously a plant.

[Oh, Gee!!]

When crap like this pops up why can't we just chalk it up to being from a nut and be done with it? I guess the immediate partisan 'score' is worth it.

it's obviously the official mission statement of all left-wingers. duh!

[Stringer_Bell]

And why are they so white?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/03/12/alg_protesters.jpg


They spend all day indoors, out of sunlight, putting together lesson plans for the children of this great country. Their pale skin is their sacrifice, their...badge of honor.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, those women see their first penis.

[Spawn]

So this so-called union busting and stripping of collective bargaining rights turned out to be just raising their pension contributions from 1% to 5.8% (just below national average) and increasing their health care contributions from 6% to 12% (less than half the national average)?


I can certainly understand the hysteria. :sleep



EDIT> Well, except for cops and firemen. <-- disclaimer for CumDumpster's benefit


Well that is what the conditions are right now. But since they took away the CB rights (and I admit I know very little on this situation so please correct me if I am wrong) there is very little if anything they can do if it is decided that they should pay even more into this stuff?

[Spurminator]

Well that is what the conditions are right now. But since they took away the CB rights (and I admit I know very little on this situation so please correct me if I am wrong) there is very little if anything they can do if it is decided that they should pay even more into this stuff?

Rest assured, you know more than Darrin on this issue.

This is the part where he disappears for a few hours and comes back with a non-sequitur picture or video he found on a blog.

[ChumpDumper]

Rest assured, you know more than Darrin on this issue.

This is the part where he disappears for a few hours and comes back with a non-sequitur picture or video he found on a blog.He might post another picture with black people in it asking why everyone is white.

[MannyIsGod]

Whats going to happen is that there is going to be a shitload of recall elections and this thing will be repealed.

[ChumpDumper]

Whats going to happen is that there is going to be a shitload of recall elections and this thing will be repealed.Probably.

It's so odd that the Republicans proved that collective bargaining works since the unions agreed to every concession asked of them.

[jack sommerset]

Whats going to happen is that there is going to be a shitload of recall elections and this thing will be repealed.

lol

[jack sommerset]

Probably.



lol

[ChumpDumper]

Well, not recall elections. Just general election losses. It's not like this has been a wildly popular move, jack.

[boutons_deux]

WI firefighters did a withdrawal run a Madison bank whose mgmt gave heavily to Walker, and the bank shut down.

"It's Their Money"

[MannyIsGod]

Oh there will be recall elections in WI. Guaranteed.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh there will be recall elections in WI. Guaranteed.

I doubt it. What we are seeing in Wisconsin is a very vocal MINORITY of the population. No matter how loud they yell it won't give them the votes they need.

[MannyIsGod]

I doubt it. What we are seeing in Wisconsin is a very vocal MINORITY of the population. No matter how loud they yell it won't give them the votes they need.

Not sure where you're getting your info from but its wrong. Look at any public opinion polling before and after Walker started this. Look at how Walker was voted into office and who voted for him and compare it to what the views are now after this.

I'll find some links and post them in a bit, but there is absolutely nothing to go on that I've seen that shows anything but a lot of anger and resentment at what the GOP has done by a large majority of constituents in that state.

[RandomGuy]

WI firefighters did a withdrawal run a Madison bank whose mgmt gave heavily to Walker, and the bank shut down.

"It's Their Money"

Interesting bit.

$200,000 bucks won't do much to a bank with $40bn in deposits though.

What would be funny would be if the public employee pension fund managers decided to concentrate their investments in the company and gain control of it.

[MannyIsGod]

The quality of polling on the Wisconsin dispute has not been terrific. But there’s a general consensus — including in some polls sponsored by conservative groups — that the Republican position was unpopular, probably about as unpopular as the Democrats’ position on health care. And the most unpopular part of their position — limiting collective bargaining rights — was the one that Republicans passed last night.

Nor is the bill likely to become any more popular given the circumstances under which it passed. Yes, there’s some hypocrisy in claims by Democrats that the Wisconsin Republicans used trickery to pass the bill — they did, after all, approve it with an elected majority, just as Democrats did on the Affordable Care Act. Nevertheless, polling suggested that Wisconsinites, by a two to one majority, expected a compromise on the bill, which this decidedly was not.

One question is how much this might hurt Republicans at the state level. As David Dayen notes, Democrats will have opportunities to fight back almost immediately, including in an April 5 election that could swing the balance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as well as in efforts to recall Republican state senators. Essentially all of Wisconsin outside of the Madison and Milwaukee metropolitan areas is very evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, so there could be a multiplier on even relatively small shifts in turnout or public opinion.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/wisconsin-dispute-could-mobilize-democratic-base/

[RandomGuy]

Not sure where you're getting your info from but its wrong. Look at any public opinion polling before and after Walker started this. Look at how Walker was voted into office and who voted for him and compare it to what the views are now after this.

I'll find some links and post them in a bit, but there is absolutely nothing to go on that I've seen that shows anything but a lot of anger and resentment at what the GOP has done by a large majority of constituents in that state.

This kind of naked, self-serving politics will do for the Democratic base what Obamacare did for tea-partiers. It is waving a red flag at a bull.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117472988.html

I think the most important factor to remember is that the groups in question are already some of the most organized political groups around and their going to get a lot of national support.

This was a stupid fight to pick by the GOP.

[MannyIsGod]

This kind of naked, self-serving politics will do for the Democratic base what Obamacare did for tea-partiers. It is waving a red flag at a bull.

Well, its worse because this will be far easier to overturn than anything passed at the federal level.

[rjv]

When crap like this pops up why can't we just chalk it up to being from a nut and be done with it? I guess the immediate partisan 'score' is worth it.


in yoni's double standard universe, nuts only exist in the right, as a necessary variable to account for the imperfections in yoni's right wing utopia.

[CosmicCowboy]

Y'all may be right. I just don't see it that way. I suspect the majority of voters/taxpayers looked at it and went..."damn!...I had no IDEA their benefits were that good! Mine aren't even CLOSE to that..."

[MannyIsGod]

What outrageous benefits.

[Marcus Bryant]

*guffaw*

[CosmicCowboy]

What outrageous benefits.

Aw c'mon Manny. A defined benefits pension plan the employee only paid 1% of? Medical insurance they only paid 6% of? Thats an unbelievably generous benefits package...I challenge you to find a package like that anywhere in the private sector...

[Spurminator]

If benefits are outrageous, state governments should have no problem building opposition to unreasonable union demands in the court of public opinion. Public pressure is not binding, obviously, but it's still a powerful tactic.

I think many people rightly see stripping the unions of their bargaining power as an unnecessary overreach, if they even know that's what this was about to begin with.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know if I'd come even close to calling that outrageous especially when considering that public employee compensation is usually put like that to lower the up front costs. In other words, they make less in Salary than private sector employees and make up for it in pension packages etc.

[DarrinS]

This kind of naked, self-serving politics will do for the Democratic base what Obamacare did for tea-partiers. It is waving a red flag at a bull.

Except that's a pretty insignificant bull.

[DarrinS]

I don't know if I'd come even close to calling that outrageous especially when considering that public employee compensation is usually put like that to lower the up front costs. In other words, they make less in Salary than private sector employees and make up for it in pension packages etc.


That's part of your compensation, numb nuts.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't know if I'd come even close to calling that outrageous especially when considering that public employee compensation is usually put like that to lower the up front costs. In other words, they make less in Salary than private sector employees and make up for it in pension packages etc.

Here we go again.

Then the rational thing for those teachers to do now would be to quit teaching and go get "overpaid" in the private sector. Fat chance of that happening.

[MannyIsGod]

That's part of your compensation, numb nuts.

Did I say it wasn't, illiterate numb nuts?

[MannyIsGod]

Here we go again.

Then the rational thing for those teachers to do now would be to quit teaching and go get "overpaid" in the private sector. Fat chance of that happening.

Actually the rational thing for those teachers to do now is to do what I said above. Work to recall and then repeal. Which is whats going to happen.

[RandomGuy]

Except I hope that it's a pretty insignificant bull.

FIFY

This is a rather good example of confirmation bias in action.

If one is realistic, one MUST acknowledge there are things that Democrats can do that will rile up the Republican base and vice versa.

In saying this is insignificant, you are ignoring some fairly objective measures that say it is, especially to Democrats and independents.

Your ideological blinders filter out this information, because you don't like it, leading you to say it is insignificant, because it being so benefits you and validates your worldview as the "correct" one.

You do this constantly. It is so obvious to everybody but you, and maybe bizarro boutons.

I say this without any acrimony. For some reason this appears not to bother you, so I guess it is just part of the landscape at this point.

I guess it doesn't bother you, but come to think of it, I don't know.

Doesn't it bother you that you so strongly and subconciously filter out information that might contradict your pre-existing beliefs?

Essentially you aren't getting a true picture of reality because of it, and come to a lot of false conclusions.

[RandomGuy]

Did I say it wasn't, illiterate numb nuts?

No actually you didn't say that at all. It was pretty clear to me you meant that pensions were part of compensation.

[DarrinS]

FIFY

This is a rather good example of confirmation bias in action.

If one is realistic, one MUST acknowledge there are things that Democrats can do that will rile up the Republican base and vice versa.

In saying this is insignificant, you are ignoring some fairly objective measures that say it is, especially to Democrats and independents.

Your ideological blinders filter out this information, because you don't like it, leading you to say it is insignificant, because it being so benefits you and validates your worldview as the "correct" one.

You do this constantly. It is so obvious to everybody but you, and maybe bizarro boutons.

I say this without any acrimony. For some reason this appears not to bother you, so I guess it is just part of the landscape at this point.

I guess it doesn't bother you, but come to think of it, I don't know.

Doesn't it bother you that you so strongly and subconciously filter out information that might contradict your pre-existing beliefs?

Essentially you aren't getting a true picture of reality because of it, and come to a lot of false conclusions.



I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[RandomGuy]

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

That didn't really answer my question.

Doesn't it bother you that you so obviously are filtering out information that you don't agree with in coming to conclusions?

Doesn't that indicate to you some fault in your thinking?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158758


In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds.
In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

[RandomGuy]

The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

[DarrinS]

That didn't really answer my question.

Doesn't it bother you that you so obviously are filtering out information that you don't agree with in coming to conclusions?

Doesn't that indicate to you some fault in your thinking?



The people of Wisconsin will prove if you are right. I won't lose sleep either way.

[RandomGuy]

The people of Wisconsin will prove if you are right. I won't lose sleep either way.

Reality will win out, but that wasn't my point.

You seem to be so obviously ignoring some pretty relavant data here.

Not trying to be hostile or snarky at all. I am just curious to see if you were cognizant of how you just filtered out some fairly important data.

It seems not. You not only don't seem to acknowledge this, you keep changing the subject, as if it is uncomfortable to even think about.

Fascinating.

[Yonivore]

I keep hearing -- from both, the right and the left -- about these "collective bargaining rights." When did collective bargaining become a right?

[Blake]

I keep hearing -- from both, the right and the left -- about these "collective bargaining rights." When did collective bargaining become a right?

:lol wow you're an idiot.

[Yonivore]

Reality will win out, but that wasn't my point.

You seem to be so obviously ignoring some pretty relavant data here.

Not trying to be hostile or snarky at all. I am just curious to see if you were cognizant of how you just filtered out some fairly important data.

It seems not. You not only don't seem to acknowledge this, you keep changing the subject, as if it is uncomfortable to even think about.

Fascinating.
Now that the public employees of Wisconsin will have to actually cut a check for their dues, it'll be interesting to see how many remain union members.

Some of the dues are around $1,000 per year ($90 buck a month or so). That'll buy a lot of cheese.

[RandomGuy]

I keep hearing -- from both, the right and the left -- about these "collective bargaining rights." When did collective bargaining become a right?

When did the ability to form a corporation become a "right"?

[CosmicCowboy]

In the weeks ahead there are gonna be plenty of pissed off special interests all over the country as all the states struggle to balance their budgets. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the ever increasing Medicare/Medicaid obligations of the states. Some sacred cows are gonna get slaughtered and thats just the way it is. It's not as much a Republican/Democrat issue as it is just facing economic reality. Shit just can't keep going on like it has in the past.

[Yonivore]

When did the ability to form a corporation become a "right"?
So far as I know, it's not a right but, a privilege extended through law. But, you didn't answer the question.

[RandomGuy]

In the weeks ahead there are gonna be plenty of pissed off special interests all over the country as all the states struggle to balance their budgets. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the ever increasing Medicare/Medicaid obligations of the states. Some sacred cows are gonna get slaughtered and thats just the way it is. It's not as much a Republican/Democrat issue as it is just facing economic reality. Shit just can't keep going on like it has in the past.

Eyup.

The ultimate problem is that our particular form of democracy lends itself to entrenched special interests with money to burn.

Like it or not, that will not change without public financing of campaigns, a particularly hated idea. I am open to any other solutions, if anyone cares to put one out there.

[Blake]

So far as I know, it's not a right but, a privilege extended through law. But, you didn't answer the question.

probably because it's a stupid question.

[RandomGuy]

So far as I know, it's not a right but, a privilege extended through law. But, you didn't answer the question.

I think the Cato institute would take issue with that being a "privilege" rather than a right.

You have betrayed a conservative talking point.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm cool with (limited) public financing and a series of mandatory debates for the Primarys and general election.

Fuck this ridiculous spending and carpet bombing of TV ads. A candidate shouldn't have to raise a BILLION DOLLARS to be elected President. He just owes too damn many people favors after raising that kind of money.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think the Cato institute would take issue with that being a "privilege" rather than a right.

You have betrayed a conservative talking point.

There are clear and explicit qualifications to be met before one can start a corporation. I'm not sure it could be defined as an automatic right.

[RandomGuy]

There are clear and explicit qualifications to be met before one can start a corporation. I'm not sure it could be defined as an automatic right.

The only real qualification to start a corporation is the ability to pay the secretary of state a filing fee. Could easily be wrong about that, as my knowledge of the process is fairly limited, to be honest. Something easily fixed though.

I could easily see the ability to form a corporation to be lumped under the ability to "freely associate" or something.

I think quibbling over the word "right" is simply a rather blatant attempt by Yonivore to change the debate in ways he thinks might benefit his point of view, with little regard to the merits of the argument made.

But that is *my* opinion, albeit based on far more exposure to bizarro bouton's MO than I would like.

[Yonivore]

I think the Cato institute would take issue with that being a "privilege" rather than a right.

You have betrayed a conservative talking point.
Probably because I'm not a conservative. But, I'd like to see where the Cato calls incorporation a right.

But, back to the original question. When did collective bargaining become a right?


probably because it's a stupid question.
Why?

[CosmicCowboy]

The only real qualification to start a corporation is the ability to pay the secretary of state a filing fee. Could easily be wrong about that, as my knowledge of the process is fairly limited, to be honest. Something easily fixed though.

I could easily see the ability to form a corporation to be lumped under the ability to "freely associate" or something.

I think quibbling over the word "right" is simply a rather blatant attempt by Yonivore to change the debate in ways he thinks might benefit his point of view, with little regard to the merits of the argument made.

But that is *my* opinion, albeit based on far more exposure to bizarro bouton's MO than I would like.

Yeah, I'm not going to quibble over it either. I've started several over the years. Some I've sold, some I've let die, and some that are still active. There are definitely rules and reporting requirements etc. and if you don't abide by the rules they will definitely kill the corp. But you are basically correct that any numbnut that will meet the basic disclosure requirements, write and file the charter, etc. and pay the filing fee can start one.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, I'm not going to quibble over it either. I've started several over the years. Some I've sold, some I've let die, and some that are still active. There are definitely rules and reporting requirements etc. and if you don't abide by the rules they will definitely kill the corp. But you are basically correct that any numbnut that will meet the basic disclosure requirements, write and file the charter, etc. and pay the filing fee can start one.
I'll quibble. Rights do not require remuneration or qualification.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll quibble. Rights do not require remuneration or qualification.

You're an idiot. If they gave out awards for idiocy they would definitely name one after you.

[Yonivore]

You're an idiot. If they gave out awards for idiocy they would definitely name one after you.
For what right have you paid or had to qualify?

[Yonivore]

Actually the rational thing for those teachers to do now is to do what I said above. Work to recall and then repeal. Which is whats going to happen.
Nonsense (http://datechguy.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/yes-ed-kainwisconsin-is-the-republican-waterloo/).

[Yonivore]

Andrew Klavan schools you on Public Sector Unions...


su4PwZCWUdg

[ChumpDumper]

Who?

[Blake]

Why?

this stupid question does not make the previous question any less stupid.

[Yonivore]

this stupid question does not make the previous question any less stupid.
So, you just want to say it's a stupid question. Cool.

[Blake]

So, you just want to say it's a stupid question. Cool.

two stupid questions, yes.

[Yonivore]

two stupid questions, yes.
Yet, you're unable to explain why they're stupid.

[Blake]

Yet, you're unable to explain why they're stupid.

able, but unwilling.

[Yonivore]

able, but unwilling.
Well, stay strong, then.

[Blake]

Well, stay strong, then.

stay stupid :tu

[Yonivore]

stay stupid :tu
Yeah, because I'm the one who thinks collective bargaining is a right. :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, because I'm the one who thinks collective bargaining is a right. :rolleyesWhen it is legally granted, it is a right you idiot.

[Blake]

Yeah, because I'm the one who thinks collective bargaining is a right. :rolleyes

obviously you don't and are unwilling to do simple research on the subject.

normally I have no problem providing the material requested, but in your case, neh.

stay stupid.

[Yonivore]

obviously you don't and are unwilling to do simple research on the subject.

normally I have no problem providing the material requested, but in your case, neh.

stay stupid.
The subject of rights or the subject of collective bargaining?

On the subject of rights; a right is the absolute authority to act without the permission of another.

Do you need me to explain collective bargaining? And, if it's a right, why isn't 100% of the workforce in a union with collective bargaining "rights?"

[Wild Cobra]

obviously you don't and are unwilling to do simple research on the subject.

normally I have no problem providing the material requested, but in your case, neh.

stay stupid.
I haven't really paid much attention to this thread, but collective bargaining is often equivalent to the mafia saying what they will take, for an employer to be allowed to stay in business.

What about the employers rights to higher and fire who he/she wants?

Collective bargaining often destroys the individuals freedoms to accel in a job for better pay as well. When employees are treated the same, with same pay by time, no flexible scale for performance, than it is not the America I know.

[Blake]

And, if it's a right, why isn't 100% of the workforce in a union with collective bargaining "rights?"

Exactly! why would anyone not want to be part of a union when they have the right?

stay fucking stupid :tu

[ChumpDumper]

The subject of rights or the subject of collective bargaining?

On the subject of rights; a right is the absolute authority to act without the permission of another.

Do you need me to explain collective bargaining? And, if it's a right, why isn't 100% of the workforce in a union with collective bargaining "rights?"yoni is stuck on stupid.

[Blake]

What about the employers rights to higher and fire who he/she wants?

I don't know, you tell me. What about those rights?


Collective bargaining often destroys the individuals freedoms to accel in a job for better pay as well.

name one example of how collective bargaining has destroyed individuals freedoms to "accel" in a job for better pay.

the stupid level on the messageboards today might be at an all time high.

fuck.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know, you tell me. What about those rights?



name one example of how collective bargaining has destroyed individuals freedoms to "accel" in a job for better pay.

the stupid level on the messageboards today might be at an all time high.

fuck.
Wow...

How does an individual bargain when it's all collective? Union members lose the ability to bargain with their employer as an individual.

[Blake]

Wow...

How does an individual bargain when it's all collective? Union members lose the ability to bargain with their employer as an individual.

wow...still fucking stupid. wow... "what a surprise".

Aside from the stupid notion that most laborers can negotiate better salaries on their own, I asked for one, just one example of the previous claim you made.

Just flat stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

wow...still fucking stupid. wow... "what a surprise".

Aside from the stupid notion that most laborers can negotiate better salaries on their own, I asked for one, just one example of the previous claim you made.

Just flat stupid.
If you don't know that what I say is true, then you are an idiot. Fixed pay scales are a creature of the union. There is no way to individually bargain for batter pay in most union jobs. Everyone knows this. Why are you ignorant to such facts?

[Blake]

There is no way to individually bargain for batter pay in most union jobs. Everyone knows this. Why are you ignorant to such facts?

pro sports aside, most union jobs are not white collar jobs.

there is very little bargaining power for individuals in blue collar jobs to begin with.

you are a fucking idiot that never backs any of his many claims up as far as I can tell.

:tu

[Wild Cobra]

pro sports aside, most union jobs are not white collar jobs.

there is very little bargaining power for individuals in blue collar jobs to begin with.

you are a fucking idiot that never backs any of his many claims up as far as I can tell.

:tu
That's OK, I'll leave you to your ignorance.

Why should I prove to you what almost everyone else knows as fact? I'll just keep it that everyone laughs at you.

[Blake]

That's OK, I'll leave you to your ignorance.

we all know you are a stupid fuck that pulls fairy tale facts right out of his ass.

no need to prove us all wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

If you don't know that what I say is true, then you are an idiot. Fixed pay scales are a creature of the union. There is no way to individually bargain for batter pay in most union jobs. Everyone knows this. Why are you ignorant to such facts?But you have been whining about how they get paid so more than private sector workers.

Self-pwned.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's OK, I'll leave you to your ignorance.

Why should I prove to you what almost everyone else knows as fact? I'll just keep it that everyone laughs at you.

In the few years I've been here you've NEVER backed up an argument with facts. Not fucking once! Yet you presume to say who everyone is laughing at :lol

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Mr Maytag.

[LnGrrrR]

Y'all may be right. I just don't see it that way. I suspect the majority of voters/taxpayers looked at it and went..."damn!...I had no IDEA their benefits were that good! Mine aren't even CLOSE to that..."

:lol What's a "sick day"?

[LnGrrrR]

So far as I know, it's not a right but, a privilege extended through law. But, you didn't answer the question.

When the 9th Amendment was signed.

[boutons_deux]

So far as I know, it's not a right but, a privilege extended through law. But, you didn't answer the question.

what?

When a activity is protected by law (abortion, private-employee collective bargaining since 1935), it becomes a right. God doesn't give or enforce rights. Courts, regulators, and police do. There is no such thing as a "God-given inalienable" right.

[CosmicCowboy]

If something is a right, wouldn't it be available to ALL Americans?

[ChumpDumper]

If something is a right, wouldn't it be available to ALL Americans?If allowed by law, sure.

If you guys can't understand the dictionary definition provided, you're never going to get it. Just give up.

[CosmicCowboy]

If allowed by law, sure.

If you guys can't understand the dictionary definition provided, you're never going to get it. Just give up.

Chump, I haven't been arguing the point, but I see a good argument for both sides.

A "right" should be available to all. If it is something that law allows to some but not to other then it becomes a privilege granted to certain groups.

[CosmicCowboy]

For example, if we say that Freedom of Religion is a right, then that means EVERYONE has the right to Freedom of Religion. If we pass a law that Muslims can't practice their faith, then we have repudiated that right and it becomes a privilege that the law only grants to certain groups.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, I haven't been arguing the point, but I see a good argument for both sides.

A "right" should be available to all. If it is something that law allows to some but not to other then it becomes a privilege granted to certain groups.Again, you ignore the definition provided.

No need to go further.

[Yonivore]

If something is a right, wouldn't it be available to ALL Americans?
Yep. Actually, a right is available to all humans.

[LnGrrrR]

If something is a right, wouldn't it be available to ALL Americans?

Nope. You have the right to open your own business, right? But that opportunity isn't available to all Americans.

[MannyIsGod]

Yep. Actually, a right is available to all humans.

:lmao

The need to name the lifetime stupidy award after you at this point. Care to revisit your arguments on terrorism with this latest mindset? If I had a dollar for everytime you pointed out that certain rights were only extended to US citizens.

You can't even keep your own bullshit in check.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:lmao

The need to name the lifetime stupidy award after you at this point.

irony

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Nope. You have the right to open your own business, right? But that opportunity isn't available to all Americans.

Are you saying opening a business is a right?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you saying opening a business is a right?You certainly have the right to if you meet the legal requirements.

How is the stupid spreading over the internets from patient zero yoni?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You certainly have the right to if you meet the legal requirements.

thanks for playing, chump



How is the stupid spreading over the internets from patient zero yoni?

yeah. exactly "How is the stupid spreading over the internets"? :tu

[ChumpDumper]

thanks for playing, chumpAlready been said several times.


yeah. exactly "How is the stupid spreading over the internets"? :tuDon't know, but it seems to have happened.

[Blake]

How is the stupid spreading over the internets from patient zero yoni?

they have the right to not be stupid, but apparently not the ability.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Don't know, but it seems to have happened.

Yeah. "the stupid" seems to have spread.

[Blake]

Yeah. "the stupid" seems to have spread.

is this some kind of grammar jab?

I hope it is.

[ChumpDumper]

is this some kind of grammar jab?

I hope it is.:lol

[Yonivore]

:lmao

The need to name the lifetime stupidy award after you at this point. Care to revisit your arguments on terrorism with this latest mindset? If I had a dollar for everytime you pointed out that certain rights were only extended to US citizens.

You can't even keep your own bullshit in check.
However I may have said it then, I was referring to U. S. Constitutional protection of rights.

Look, y'all can direct your vituperation at me all you want, I'm not bothered. But, that you choose to attack me instead of addressing the ideas says more about you than it does about me.

[ChumpDumper]

However I may have said it then, I was referring to U. S. Constitutional protection of rights.

Look, y'all can direct your vituperation at me all you want, I'm not bothered. But, that you choose to attack me instead of addressing the ideas says more about you than it does about me.What ideas?

Your stupid ideas?

They're stupid.

They are the ideas of a stupid person.

[CosmicCowboy]

Black's Law Dictionary defines the terms as follows:

RIGHT: "Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."

PRIVILEGE: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."

As I read this, when a law grants a benefit to a person or class and does not grant the same benefit to all, then it is a privilege and not a right.

[rascal]

:lol you know. I think I saw nothing but whitey as well. Oh, well. Quit believing your lying eyes.

Not many blacks in Wisconsin.

[ChumpDumper]

Black's Law Dictionary defines the terms as follows:

RIGHT: "Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."

PRIVILEGE: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."

As I read this, when a law grants a benefit to a person or class and does not grant the same benefit to all, then it is a privilege and not a right.Another definition has already been posted and is just as valid.

This is pointless.

[boutons_deux]

"existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."

So, in practice (not in patriotic wish lists), there are no (God-given, inalienable) rights, no powers of free action, unless recognized (and enforced) by positive law.

[ChumpDumper]

Correct. It's basically shit that was agreed upon. Like collective bargaining rights.

[LnGrrrR]

Are you saying opening a business is a right?

The freedom to start a business is a right, yes. You have a right to nearly anything, assuming it's not for forbidden by law. That's kinda the point of the 9th amendment.

[boutons_deux]

not just agreed upon, but enshrined in law, to defend workers against employers' vicious goon squads:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act

[Blake]

Black's Law Dictionary defines the terms as follows:

RIGHT: "Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."

PRIVILEGE: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."

As I read this, when a law grants a benefit to a person or class and does not grant the same benefit to all, then it is a privilege and not a right.

what was the point of this post?

[LnGrrrR]

Chump, I haven't been arguing the point, but I see a good argument for both sides.

A "right" should be available to all. If it is something that law allows to some but not to other then it becomes a privilege granted to certain groups.

So voting is a "privilege", not a right?

[LnGrrrR]

Black's Law Dictionary defines the terms as follows:

RIGHT: "Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."

PRIVILEGE: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."

As I read this, when a law grants a benefit to a person or class and does not grant the same benefit to all, then it is a privilege and not a right.

So like I said, opening a business is a right. Thanks for proving me correct.

[Yonivore]

what was the point of this post?
It shows how stupid you and LnGrrrR are about what is a right. Even the law disagrees with you.

[Yonivore]

So like I said, opening a business is a right. Thanks for proving me correct.


...existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law
I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand what that means.

[ChumpDumper]

And yet, everyone still calls them collective bargaining rights.

Because they are rights.

[Blake]

It shows how stupid you and LnGrrrR are about what is a right. Even the law disagrees with you.

You've spread your dumbfuckery to others in this thread, so now I finally feel obliged to stop the ignorance.


National Labor Relations Act

Section 7: RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES

Sec. 7. § 157. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3)

http://everything2.com/title/National+Labor+Relations+Act%252C+Section+7%253A+R ights+of+employees


I knew this Act already, but it took all of 5 seconds of google power to figure out why everyone call them "collective bargaining rights"

http://tinyurl.com/5shtdnp

[Yonivore]

You've spread your dumbfuckery to others in this thread, so now I finally feel obliged to stop the ignorance.



I knew this Act already, but it took all of 5 seconds of google power to figure out why everyone call them "collective bargaining rights"

http://tinyurl.com/5shtdnp
Calling something a right -- even in law -- doesn't make it one.

[ChumpDumper]

Calling something a right -- even in law -- doesn't make it one.Correct. Its actually being a right granted by law makes it a right.

[Blake]

Calling something a right -- even in law -- doesn't make it one.

thanks for confirming my initial reaction to just call you stupid instead of answering your stupid questions was justified.

stay stupid. :tu

[Yonivore]

thanks for confirming my initial reaction to just call you stupid instead of answering your stupid questions was justified.

stay stupid. :tu
I give LnGrrrR more credit for understanding than I do you so, I'll explain the concept for you.


...existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law.
This means a right is independent of the law and exists whether or not the law recognizes it.

I know you're confused by all the talk of legal "rights." Right to privacy, the right to an abortion, etc...

But, if I could analogize, it would be similar to the phenomenon of everyone calling the United States of America a Democracy. That's not true. The U.S. is not a Democracy but, that doesn't stop the vast majority of Americans -- of all political stripes -- from calling it one.

And, as soon as someone gains a privilege through law, agreement, or some other transaction, they are wont to slap the term "right" on it. That doesn't make it so.

For instance, let's look at LnGrrrR snarky retort...


So like I said, opening a business is a right. Thanks for proving me correct.
Actually, the right that underpins his response is liberty. We have the right to be free in our associations with others -- whether it be for commerce or some other exchange or, in fact, for no mutual or selfish benefit at all. But, this right exists only to the extent that it does not infringe on another right to liberty.

That's why we have laws that control our exercise of that right.

[ChumpDumper]

And workers have the right to bargain collectively according to labor laws.

Eh, you'll never understand.

[Blake]

And workers have the right to bargain collectively according to labor laws.

Eh, you'll never understand.

Yoni apparently thinks the 1st ten amendments should be called the Bill of Privileges.

[Wild Cobra]

I knew this Act already, but it took all of 5 seconds of google power to figure out why everyone call them "collective bargaining rights"

http://tinyurl.com/5shtdnp
Defined rights in a contract are not the same as legal rights undefined. In a contract, the definition is for that contract. Not for everything outside that contract. It is simply clarifying what the terms mean for that contract.

[ChumpDumper]

Defined rights in a contract are not the same as legal rights undefined. In a contract, the definition is for that contract. Not for everything outside that contract. It is simply clarifying what the terms mean for that contract.Even you call them rights.

Are you done?

[LnGrrrR]

Actually, the right that underpins his response is liberty. We have the right to be free in our associations with others -- whether it be for commerce or some other exchange or, in fact, for no mutual or selfish benefit at all. But, this right exists only to the extent that it does not infringe on another right to liberty.

That's why we have laws that control our exercise of that right.

That's exactly what I said upthread, though. Just because there are limits on a right doesnt make it NOT a right.

For instance, I can't go around threatening schools with bomb threats under the right to freedom of speech.

That doesn't mean that freedom of speech is a privilege.

[RandomGuy]

And workers have the right to bargain collectively according to labor laws.

Eh, you'll never understand.

As I noted before, this entire thread is simply Yonivore attempting to change the terms of the argument to shift it into grounds that he thinks support his political viewpoint.

He does this all the time, and it is as dishonest now as it was all the other times he has tried to do it.

[Blake]

Defined rights in a contract are not the same as legal rights undefined. In a contract, the definition is for that contract. Not for everything outside that contract. It is simply clarifying what the terms mean for that contract.

you mention the word "contract" 5 times here.

lol why, when that word has not been mentioned previously in this thread?what imaginary poster are you arguing with?

lol crazy wild cobra

[Yonivore]

That's exactly what I said upthread, though. Just because there are limits on a right doesnt make it NOT a right.

For instance, I can't go around threatening schools with bomb threats under the right to freedom of speech.

That doesn't mean that freedom of speech is a privilege.
No, it's not exactly what you said upthread.

And, you can go around threatening schools with bomb threats.

I think you're confusing limits with consequences.

[admiralsnackbar]

No, it's not exactly what you said upthread.

And, you can go around threatening schools with bomb threats.

I think you're confusing limits with consequences.

You can threaten schools with bombs, but you don't have the right to.

I think you're confusing LnGrrrR with someone who is susceptible to misdirection.

[Cry Havoc]

:wow The stupidy in this thread is incredible.


Intentional mistake to see if Viva crawls back out of his hole to correct some more grammar.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

It's supposed to be in blue, bi-boy :toast

[Cry Havoc]

Shucks. I've been found out. At least I wasn't corrected. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Do you need me to explain collective bargaining? And, if it's a right, why isn't 100% of the workforce in a union with collective bargaining "rights?"

Because the Republican party has stripped that right from people in a rather naked attempt at political gain. It has, for the most part, worked.

I also don't think anybody here doubts that if the "right" of corporations or individual to donate money to political causes were curtailed in some fashion, you would be up there screaming from the rooftops about it.

Pfft.

[Cry Havoc]

I think it's humorous given the context of what's happening in the Middle East that certain people in this thread are trying to say that as a human you have certain rights that can't be taken from you in the first place. :lol

[ManuBalboa]

"Dead Man Walker"

lol civility

[LnGrrrR]

No, it's not exactly what you said upthread.

And, you can go around threatening schools with bomb threats.

I think you're confusing limits with consequences.

Ok, so you're saying I have the "right" to threaten a school, because there are consequences.

By that logic, I also have the right to kill someone, because there are consequences for that too, right?

[Yonivore]

Ok, so you're saying I have the "right" to threaten a school, because there are consequences.

By that logic, I also have the right to kill someone, because there are consequences for that too, right?
Speech and murder are different; as are, threats and actions. You completely butchered that analogy.

The exercise of a right can lead to consequences if such exercise infringes on the rights of another.

It's still legal to yell "Fire" in an unoccupied theater. The violation occurs when others may be harmed by your speech -- someone loses life, liberty, or property -- because you yelled "Fire" and they were killed, injured, or lost possession of some item of property.

[Yonivore]

I think it's humorous given the context of what's happening in the Middle East that certain people in this thread are trying to say that as a human you have certain rights that can't be taken from you in the first place. :lol
No one is saying rights can't be taken, we're just trying to establish what is a right.

[ChumpDumper]

Collective bargaining rights.

[LnGrrrR]

Speech and murder are different; as are, threats and actions. You completely butchered that analogy.

Not really.


The exercise of a right can lead to consequences if such exercise infringes on the rights of another.

Ok....


It's still legal to yell "Fire" in an unoccupied theater. The violation occurs when others may be harmed by your speech -- someone loses life, liberty, or property -- because you yelled "Fire" and they were killed, injured, or lost possession of some item of property.

But it's not legal to yell "Fire" in an occupied theatre falsely.

Would you say that you have the "right" to do something patently illegal?

[Yonivore]

Would you say that you have the "right" to do something patently illegal?
No; if by illegal you mean my actions infringe on the rights of another.

Having the right to free speech doesn't translate into having the right to incite action, via speech, that will result in harm to someone else.

The law has taken it one step further and contemplated harm and made yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, illegal. Why? Because, experience had shown that such could lead to the infringement of others' rights.

[LnGrrrR]

Having the right to free speech doesn't translate into having the right to incite action, via speech, that will result in harm to someone else.

Which is exactly what I said. You don't have the "right" to speak freely when that right infringes on other's liberty ie. yelling "Fire".

And yet, no one would say that "right" is suddenly a "privilege" because it's limited in certain areas.

So, going back to the OP, just because collective bargaining may be limited by certain instances of the law, it is no less a "right". The right to collectively bargain exists "antecedently to their recognition by positive law", because, as you already noted, "We have the right to be free in our associations with others -- whether it be for commerce or some other exchange or, in fact, for no mutual or selfish benefit at all."

If we have the right to be free in our associations with others, we also have the right to freely associate with each other to collectively bargain for a wage, even if that right to collectively bargain may not be recognized by positive law.

Thanks for helping. :tu

[Yonivore]

Which is exactly what I said. You don't have the "right" to speak freely when that right infringes on other's liberty ie. yelling "Fire".

And yet, no one would say that "right" is suddenly a "privilege" because it's limited in certain areas.

So, going back to the OP, just because collective bargaining may be limited by certain instances of the law, it is no less a "right". The right to collectively bargain exists "antecedently to their recognition by positive law", because, as you already noted, "We have the right to be free in our associations with others -- whether it be for commerce or some other exchange or, in fact, for no mutual or selfish benefit at all."

If we have the right to be free in our associations with others, we also have the right to freely associate with each other to collectively bargain for a wage, even if that right to collectively bargain may not be recognized by positive law.

Thanks for helping. :tu
While the right to freely associate with others does exist antecedently to its recognition in positive law; to do so for the purpose of collectively bargaining does not.

You're still wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

While the right to freely associate with others does exist antecedently to its recognition in positive law; to do so for the purpose of collectively bargaining does not.

Feel free to prove it. I don't think "because I said so" is good enough.

[Marcus Bryant]

What we commonly think of as rights in the US are usually thought of as explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Yes, of course, there are plenty of rights which are granted by federal and state laws which were not so defined explicitly. To the extent that a "right" can be taken away without violating the Constitution, perhaps that can be thought of as more of a privilege. But a number of 'privileges' have such long-standing and expectations attached that they are tantamount to rights of the first order.

[Yonivore]

What we commonly think of as rights in the US are usually thought of as explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Yes, of course, there are plenty of rights which are granted by federal and state laws which were not so defined explicitly. To the extent that a "right" can be taken away without violating the Constitution, perhaps that can be thought of as more of a privilege. But a number of 'privileges' have such long-standing and expectations attached that they are tantamount to rights of the first order.
So, basically, you're saying if we call something a right long enough, it is one? That goes back to my suggestion there are people that have called the United States a democracy for so long that it is one.

Neither is true.

[Marcus Bryant]

Should the ability to legally operate a motor vehicle be thought of as a right or a privilege? How about to walk on a public sidewalk?

Anyways, this is more mental masturbation than anything. The collective bargaining 'right' of public employees in Wisconsin was granted by state law and has now been removed as it pertains to non-salary compensation.

[Yonivore]

Should the ability to legally operate a motor vehicle be thought of as a right or a privilege? How about to walk on a public sidewalk?

Anyways, this is more mental masturbation than anything. The collective bargaining 'right' of public employees in Wisconsin was granted by state law and has now been removed as it pertains to non-salary compensation.
If it can be removed so easily, it's not much of a "right," now is it?

[Marcus Bryant]

So could driving and walking "rights."

The only difference is that while those privileges apply to virtually all, the bargaining rights apply to a smaller class, and pit the interests of that group against the public.

Anyways, there are plenty of rights created by state laws.

[Yonivore]

So could driving and walking "rights."

The only difference is that while those privileges apply to virtually all, the bargaining rights apply to a smaller class, and pit the interests of that group against the public.

Anyways, there are plenty of rights created by state laws.
I've never claimed you had a right to drive or walk -- except on your own property.

[Marcus Bryant]

Apparently even Walker and the GOP majority in the WI legislature are content to leave such rights for pedagogue salaries and fully for policemen and firefighters.

[Marcus Bryant]

I've never claimed you had a right to drive or walk -- except on your own property.

I don't care if you did or didn't. Any guess as to how a move to remove those 'privileges' would play out in any state, say, for example, the commie stronghold of Texas?

[Yonivore]

I don't care if you did or didn't. Any guess as to how a move to remove those 'privileges' would play out in any state, say, for example, the commie stronghold of Texas?
Happens all the time. Licenses are suspended or revoked; hell, you can't even get one until you're of a certain age. Drunk pedestrians are hauled off to jail; Trespassers are cited or arrested and then removed from the premises on which they're trespassing.

While you have the right to freely move, you don't have a right to do it in any manner you choose or wherever you choose. You must qualify for the privilege to drive or to walk about...other than on your own property.

[Marcus Bryant]

Fine, the privilege to drive or walk in what would othrwise be a responsible, legal manner, save for a seismic change in the legal definition.

[LnGrrrR]

While you have the right to freely move, you don't have a right to do it in any manner you choose or wherever you choose. You must qualify for the privilege to drive or to walk about...other than on your own property.

So, if the state of Texas suddenly passed a law stating that only Republicans would be given driver's licenses, that would then be kosher? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Still waiting for Yoni to express why the freedom to associate with others doesn't apply to bargaining freely.

[Marcus Bryant]

Still waiting for Yoni to express why the freedom to associate with others doesn't apply to bargaining freely.

Would it not also apply to the freedom to stand outside on your own property and jack off for everyone to see?

[Yonivore]

So, if the state of Texas suddenly passed a law stating that only Republicans would be given driver's licenses, that would then be kosher? :lol
No; I think that's remedied in the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause.

And, in reading the fourteenth amendment, it is illuminating to see how they treat life, liberty, and property (the only rights there are) separately from privileges and immunities.

[Yonivore]

Would it not also apply to the freedom to stand outside on your own property and jack off for everyone to see?
No, because your act isn't confined to your property but, visible from others' properties and, therefore, could be considered to harm others.

[Marcus Bryant]

But a man's home is his castle and his rod is his staff, as it were.

[Yonivore]

Still waiting for Yoni to express why the freedom to associate with others doesn't apply to bargaining freely.
Because bargaining requires the assent of all parties and, if one party (in the case of Wisconsin, the government) decides it doesn't want to bargain, you don't bargain.

You're still free to associate and talk about collective bargaining all you want but, unless all parties (required for collective bargaining to take place) are present and agree to bargain, you can't bargain. If it were a right, the government would be compelled to recognize that right.

[Yonivore]

But a man's home is his castle and his rod is his staff, as it were.
And, if his home, rod, and staff aren't visible from anyone else's property, he's free to jack off in the front yard all he wants. In fact, if he has the consent of all his neighbors and persons who could possibly see him, he could do it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Because bargaining requires the assent of all parties and, if one party (in the case of Wisconsin, the government) decides it doesn't want to bargain, you don't bargain.

You're still free to associate and talk about collective bargaining all you want but, unless all parties (required for collective bargaining to take place) are present and agree to bargain, you can't bargain. If it were a right, the government would be compelled to recognize that right.



Is not a private employer compelled to recognize that right?

[Yonivore]

Is not a private employer compelled to recognize that right?
What right? Collective bargaining?

No.

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh really?

[Yonivore]

Oh really?
If the employees of a private company organize and form a union (or join an existing union), there's no obligation for the employer to recognize that organization or bargain with them, collectively.

They can refuse and all you have is an organization of employees.

That said, the employer must recognize the potential for the organization to strike and be prepared to either deal with them or fire them and start over.

[Marcus Bryant]

So the employer has to cease to exist to avoid recognizing that right, according to you, which would mean any employer that continues to exist whose employees organized must recognize the right.

[Yonivore]

So the employer has to cease to exist to avoid recognizing that right, according to you, which would mean any employer that continues to exist whose employees organized must recognize the right.
No. Any employer who enters into a contract with an employee organization has a legal obligation to adhere to that contract.

And, the employer doesn't have to cease to exist in order to avoid organized labor. Many unions are busted by employers who refuse to recognize them. Other employers give their employees an ultimatum and fire those that (obviously think like you do) believe they have a right to unionization. But, also, there are employers who enter into contracts with unions and are bound by law to the agreements into which they enter.

There are fewer of those in the private section (and the number is shrinking) and, because of the ease of corrupting elected officials (such as Wisconsin Democrats), unions in the public sector are growing.

Here's some interesting statistics from the Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm):


In 2010, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union--was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers be-
longing to unions declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million. In 1983, the first year for
which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 per-
cent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.

The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current Population Sur-
vey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that obtains informa-
tion on employment and unemployment among the nation's civilian noninstitutional
population age 16 and over. For more information see the Technical Note.

Highlights from the 2010 data:

--The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was
substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent).
(See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest
unionization rate at 37.1 percent. (See table 3.)

--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian,
or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

--Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent)
and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). (See table 5.)

If collective bargaining were a right, there'd be more than 6.9% of private employees unionized and demanding that right.

[Marcus Bryant]

If an employer tries to interfere with organizing, especially through termination, the NLRB will get involved and the employer will find itself the subject of a lawsuit for violating their employees' right to organize.

If the law was as you seem to think it is, there'd be no private sector unions, so thanks for pointing out that there are.

[ChumpDumper]

It's astounding how tenaciously yoni clings to his stupid position.

[DMX7]

Yoni, WC, and other TeaBaggers are at the forefront of a new trend among conservatives, and that is to claim they are not actually conservatives at all. Just another obvious and pathetic attempt to lend much needed credibility to their nonsense.

[boutons_deux]

"If collective bargaining were a right, there'd be more than 6.9% of private employees unionized and demanding that right."

Employers fire employees who try to organize a union. UCA's biggest shit shoveler, Walmart, is excellent at keeping unions out.

Yoni, wrong as always, assumes divided, isolated employees (job demaders) are some kind of match for the focused, financed employers (job suppliers).

You want a job in an economy with 20%+ un/mal-employment? STFU about unions, you intimidated wimp.

[Yonivore]

If an employer tries to interfere with organizing, especially through termination, the NLRB will get involved and the employer will find itself the subject of a lawsuit for violating their employees' right to organize.

If the law was as you seem to think it is, there'd be no private sector unions, so thanks for pointing out that there are.
6.9% isn't much of unionized labor force. And, without a contract, there's no obligation to work with the union.

[Blake]

6.9% isn't much of unionized labor force. And, without a contract, there's no obligation to work with the union.

You are two verifiable levels of stupid.

Maybe more.