Your Vote, Your Reasons

[AntiChrist]

STFU message boy

Hey, white boy! STFU! You only PRETENDED to be me in that movie.

[DWest30]

Yeah, I'm in Pennsylvania now.

Just the concept of Congress passing a law TAKING AWAY the guarantee of a secret ballot seems anathema to most of what I believe, and I THOUGHT other Americans believed.

Sorry, I mean Ive never been union.

[101A]

Welcome to the club.

I used to consider myself a centrist, and somewhere along the line was called a liberal, and since then I have simply given up and worn the label with pride.

I revel in the fact that I get to f*** with what a lot of "conservatives" believe about "liberals".

Quite frankly I really believe the modern conservative movement has become morally and intellectually bankrupt.

It has been remarked that "revolutions tend to eat their children", i.e. after a revolution, the radicals tend to be the ones in power and pillory moderates for not being revolutionary enough. This seems to have happened with the Republican Revolution as well, and is evidenced by Palins recent remarks, and the RINO designation/ostracism of moderates in the GOP.

There seems to me to be something of a Democratic Revolution, and hopefully the moderates will be the ones in charge of this one.

Ummmm. We already know who is going to be in charge. Not a single one of them is remotely "moderate".

It's actually ironic as . You are ranting about wanting moderates, and labeling the ONLY one who has a history of being one as a "radical conservative".

You aren't liberal. You are simply partisan.

[RandomGuy]

If you don't think Pelosi and Reed are radical, you have fallen way outside of the mainstream.

Nobody has answered, or commented, but I have brought it up twice; what do you think of the allowance of non-private voting for unionization?

I don't much like Pelosi. She is a bit more radical. Reid isn't much better.

I am not scared of unions. Providers of capital get to pool their capital into corporations for collective bargaining, and providers of labor should be do the same.

As for secret/non secret ballots, I don't really know enough to have much of an opinion.

I am generally for whatever allows people to more freely express themselves in such a vote.

[AntiChrist]

You'll never guess what's playing on my radio right now.


"Sympathy for the Devil" Rolling Stones


Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had His moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed His fate


Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game

[DarkReign]

Yes.

And "demonize" is the least of what I imagine might happen.

What is wrong with secret ballot?

Nothing is wrong with a secret ballot and any attempts to further unionize certain industries in this nation will do nothing except further exclude non-right-to-work states from the list of potential suitor-states for the creation of new plants/offices (3 letter word.....jobs).

[RandomGuy]

Ummmm. We already know who is going to be in charge. Not a single one of them is remotely "moderate".

It's actually ironic as . You are ranting about wanting moderates, and labeling the ONLY one who has a history of being one as a "radical conservative".

You aren't liberal. You are simply partisan.

Darn tootin' I'm fairly partisan. I have bought into being a Democrat, and try to be as fair as possible. Given what I see going on on the Republican side with all sorts of nasty distortions and really really nasty partisanship, ala Aggie Hoopsfan, I would say that makes me a moderate.

Which moderate Republican have I labeled as a "radical"?

[101A]

I don't much like Pelosi. She is a bit more radical. Reid isn't much better.

I am not scared of unions. Providers of capital get to pool their capital into corporations for collective bargaining, and providers of labor should be do the same.

As for secret/non secret ballots, I don't really know enough to have much of an opinion.

I am generally for whatever allows people to more freely express themselves in such a vote.

The way it is now: employees at a company vote by ballot as to whether they want to be a Union shop. Majority wins. The way it WILL be. The Union sets up a table, and employees who want to unionize go up in public and sign their names; or they get visited at home by Union organizers, and are urged to sign. Once 50% is reached; they are unionized.

My wife is in a Union. It DOES NOT exist to give the employees power; it exists to give the union leaders power. She is far more beholden to them than she ever has been to an actual employer; however, this thread has been hijacked enough, that's enough for that subject; I'll start a thread when the law comes up early next year.

[DarkReign]

...to put a bow on the union discussion, I believe that to be a states-rights issue. Let each state have their own laws, just like it is now.

Federally legislating everything is what has started the ruin to this country and it will surely be the end as well.

[DarkReign]

this thread has been hijacked enough, that's enough for that subject; I'll start a thread when the law comes up early next year.

that. Keep going

[101A]

Darn tootin' I'm fairly partisan. I have bought into being a Democrat, and try to be as fair as possible. Given what I see going on on the Republican side with all sorts of nasty distortions and really really nasty partisanship, ala Aggie Hoopsfan, I would say that makes me a moderate.

Which moderate Republican have I labeled as a "radical"?

Might have mislabeled, but the gyst of your post suggested to me that you were voting against radicalness (Republican - McCain), and FOR Moderation (Democrat - Obama). Obama's lifetime voting record is more outside the mainstream of US citizens than that of McCain - not even close. Their platforms, frankly, are within a whisker of each other. Obama has some new en lements that McCain doesn't - but tax rates are w/in 3% at every income level.

As I said, if Obama ACTUALLY governs as his platform says he will; we'll be alright. Frankly, however, that will make him far more moderate than he has ever actually been.

[hater]

Angel, you think people are going to take your silliness seriously????

Go ahead, pray to your fake God. There's not stopping me!

Mwahahhahahahahaah!!!!!!

[101A]

...to put a bow on the union discussion, I believe that to be a states-rights issue. Let each state have their own laws, just like it is now.

Federally legislating everything is what has started the ruin to this country and it will surely be the end as well.

You're State's Rights, too?

Dude, you are not even a little bit liberal.

We need to form a new "Common Sense" party. Be like those firfighters on that commercial.

"Need clean water boys?" AYE!

[RandomGuy]

Invariably, Ive always thought myself a conservative....that was until I got here at Spurstalk and was told by the whottt/clanny/Yoni/Xrays of the world that I'm a terrorist loving liberal sociopath and then they provided links to other people to prove it.

I took stock of who I am and realized that if conservatism were a mental-health hospital, then the inmates had taken over the asylum without me noticing.

That more or less, removed me from their inner circle, and could never have cared less.

I'm pretty sure I've apostasized from conservatism. Last week, someone called me a liberal communist sympathizer because I said that if Obama were elected, I wasn't going to pull the "he's not my President" card or call him "that n***** in the White House." So I'm out of the club. I am basically a pro-life moderate now, still slowly trending leftward.

Somewhere back there conservatism changed.

I always considered myself more conservative before as well. That being said, I know my personal ideology has shifted to the left and I'm OK with that. I don't think I can consider myself anything but a liberal now.

I used to consider myself a centrist, and somewhere along the line was called a liberal, and since then I have simply given up and worn the label with pride.

I revel in the fact that I get to f*** with what a lot of "conservatives" believe about "liberals".

Quite frankly I really believe the modern conservative movement has become morally and intellectually bankrupt

Anybody else sensing a theme here?

This is why Republicans are losing elections. That people like Aggiee Hoopsfan or Wild Cobra might not see it says to me that the Republicans are doomed.

[DWest30]

You're State's Rights, too?

Dude, you are not even a little bit liberal.

We need to form a new "Common Sense" party. Be like those firfighters on that commercial.

"Need clean water boys?" AYE!

Um....Libertarian?

[hater]

Anybody else sensing a theme here?

you're all satanists?

[Tully365]

My vote goes to Obama.

I was an independent who tended to lean Democratic on social issues, and Republican when it came to fiscal matters.

The last 8 years have finished me on the Republican party. When Cheney said "deficits don't matter" and the trickle down voodoo economics became the mantra, that started losing me. The stupidity that is Iraq was what finished it and made me turn my back on the GOP, probably for the rest of my life.

As a vet and one with enough knowledge about the subject to know how unnecessary Iraq was and how negligently it was run, at the cost of lives in the thousands of servicemembers, I feel that Bush and his administration betrayed a sacred trust to provide our military with the best possible leadership. For that I cannot forgive Bush, and am angry beyond words. That so many Republicans questioned my patriotism for criticising this and bought into the lies, makes my decision to be a Democrat much easier.

I have stood aghast at the level of incompetence, and naked hubris of the current administration.

That it was so cavalier with our government, imposing ideological litmus tests on hiring for non-political posts, a war on science that surpressed data that contradicted its ideology, seizing new powers and really going for what is best described as an "imperial" presidency, simply reinforced my belief that the Republican party really didn't represent the best interests of the nation, and that the radicals had taken power.

After years of seeing the Dems shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to picking a presidential candidate, I was horrified when I saw the same thing about to happen with Hillary being the front runner. I personally don't have a problem with the woman, but knew that she would lose in any national election.

I looked around, did a bit of digging and found Obama to be the best out of a pack of good alternatives.

He was obviously intelligent, and spoke to audiences on topics as if they were grown ups. The speech in Philidelphia on race sealed it.

I do not agree with everything in his platform, I do not think he is some earth-shakingly new type of politician who has never said something because it was convenient or because it would increase his support.

Since the primaries, he has shown himself to be disciplined, driven, intelligent, and able to learn things quickly, and has developed an obvious grasp of all sorts of issues.

Inexperienced? Meh. Some of our best presidents have been inexperienced, and what really truly prepares you to be the president of the United States?

Given all this, I voted, cacuased, and call-banked for him in the primaries. I met the campaign workers from his national staff that came to my county, and was impressed at their drive, their intelligence, and their motivation.

This country needs a person who can attract such people to the next administration. Obama has looked more and more presidential every day, especially when put next to the McCain/Palin ticket.

I don't buy the hyterical doom and gloom scenarios of a country in ruins for electing Democrats. It is time for a change, and time for moderates to take back the government from the radicals who have been in charge.

Posts like this are the reason I visit this forum.

[101A]

Um....Libertarian?

Libertarians do not have a tenable platform. We will never put the Genie that is the Federal Government back in a bottle they would consider small enough.

[JoeChalupa]

I visit this forum for the entertainment value.

[RandomGuy]

...to put a bow on the union discussion, I believe that to be a states-rights issue. Let each state have their own laws, just like it is now.

Federally legislating everything is what has started the ruin to this country and it will surely be the end as well.

The problem with doing everything at the state level is you get an explosion of burocracy.

Can you imagine 50 different FBI's? 50 different sets of aviation rules? Drug regulation?

What happens if you, say, get rid of the FBI, and a large international drug cartel infiltrates and dominates a thinly populated state like Wyoming, Alaska, or South Dakota?

The US economy depends on uniform rules that allow companies from Texas and New York, to set up in say, Kansas, and know that the laws apply evenly for the most part.

[101A]

Anybody else sensing a theme here?

This is why Republicans are losing elections. That people like Aggiee Hoopsfan or Wild Cobra might not see it says to me that the Republicans are doomed.

Yes, everybody is punishing the moderate McCain for the radical behavior of people that came before

[DWest30]

Libertarians do not have a tenable platform. We will never put the Genie that is the Federal Government back in a bottle they would consider small enough.

No, you cant put the genie back inthe bottle, but you can contain them and protect individual rights at the same time.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

The way it is now: employees at a company vote by ballot as to whether they want to be a Union shop. Majority wins. The way it WILL be. The Union sets up a table, and employees who want to unionize go up in public and sign their names; or they get visited at home by Union organizers, and are urged to sign. Once 50% is reached; they are unionized.

Not exactly true. Right now, employers can recognize unions when a majority of workers sign auth cards, or the employer can stall and demand a secret ballot. Traditionally this time is used to stonewall and intimidate. the EFCA doesn't eliminate secret ballot. it just doesn't allow an employer to call for one unless under 50% of the work force signs.

Unions and employers both use unfortunate tactics, but the act isn't as sinister or radical as you imply.

[Tully365]

Anybody else sensing a theme here?

Very true. That's a theme I support 100%.

[RandomGuy]

[Randomguy's post on who is voting for and why]
Posts like this are the reason I visit this forum.

Thanks.