Political Statement of the Day

Grizzly · Mar 6, 2011

GaReb770 · Mar 6, 2011

Priceless!

wherestheportojohn · Mar 6, 2011

<img alt="biggrin.gif" id="user_yui_3_3_0_5_129944056087524" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/biggrin.gif" style="width:16px;height:16px;">
 
 
I need to 'borrow' that pic to use as my newest facebook profile.
 
 
 
<img alt="biggrin.gif" id="user_yui_3_3_0_5_129944056087535" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/biggrin.gif" style="width:16px;height:16px;">

Mrtambalynman · Mar 7, 2011

She looks evil.

wherestheportojohn · Mar 7, 2011

Buxtehude · Mar 8, 2011

My mother is a union thug.
 
Labor union.
 
Her name is Lynda.

Mrtambalynman · Mar 8, 2011

I bet she's a godless commie.

Tech Tee · Mar 8, 2011

DW is a union thug. I mean, teaching kids to read an all.

kerfwango · Mar 8, 2011

My straw man can kick your straw man's ass.

Mrtambalynman · Mar 8, 2011

That's where it all started to go wrong. 

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Tech Tee <a href="/forum/thread/72905/political-statement-of-the-day#post_1987654"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-right:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-bottom:0px solid;"></a> DW is a union thug. I mean, teaching kids to read an all. 
</div>
</div>

wherestheportojohn · Mar 8, 2011

willrun4chocolate · Mar 8, 2011

So porty are you guys actually out "on strike" or are you taking turns protesting, are the schools open?

wherestheportojohn · Mar 8, 2011

willrun,
Schools are open. (for now) And yes, many districts are asking their staff to use sick or personal leave to help with the weekday protests.
Weekend rallying at the Capitol building as a festive, yet terribly serious, side to it.
 
The cheesehead state is in a schtinky mess....too much to get into here.
Morale in most school districts is teh sukk.

Tech Tee · Mar 9, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Mrtambalynman <a href="/forum/thread/72905/political-statement-of-the-day#post_1987685"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> That's where it all started to go wrong. 

 
</div>
</div>
 
DW has sent this jpg to all her friends. One of them has made it her avatar.

gatorbob · Mar 10, 2011

I have a few questions about this collective bargaining issue in Wisconsin. I've always worked in the private sector, and I don't understand all the public union wheelings and dealings...
 
1) Supposedly the governor's proposed plan would mean there would be no layoffs. So without the plan being voted in, that would mean layoffs. So are the teachers in Wisconsin actually in favor of layoffs? 
 
2) From what I understand, not every state has these types of collective bargaining rights. About half the states do, and half don't. And federal government workers don't have it. Thus the majority of government union workers do not have these rights. So why is it such a big deal for Wisconsin's government workers, when so many other similar workers don't have those same rights?
 
3) The people of Wisconsin democratically elected Scott Walker as governor, and 33 people as state senators to write bills and vote on them. 14 of these state senators have fled the state and are refusing to do the jobs they were elected to do. So aren't those 14 senators defying the will of the people, and are in some kind of violation of the democratic process? It seems weird to me that there isn't some kind of "rule" that forces elected officials to vote on bills that are presented. I mean, if a minority can just not show up any time there's a bill up for vote and prevent the vote from being passed, then how does anything ever get passed in this country? If one side knows they will lose, why don't they just not show up for the vote? Could this become a common thing around the country? Could the Republicans have done this for Obamacare? 
 
I don't live in Wisconsin and I am not a member of any union. I am not asking these to start some kind of flame war; I really just in the dark on this. From my outsider's perspective, these are the questions that pop to mind and nobody on the news seems to be able (or willing) to answer...

rlemert · Mar 10, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by GatorBob <a href="/forum/thread/72905/political-statement-of-the-day#post_1988129"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a> 3) The people of Wisconsin democratically elected Scott Walker as governor, and 33 people as state senators to write bills and vote on them. 14 of these state senators have fled the state and are refusing to do the jobs they were elected to do. So aren't those 14 senators defying the will of the people, and are in some kind of violation of the democratic process? It seems weird to me that there isn't some kind of "rule" that forces elected officials to vote on bills that are presented. I mean, if a minority can just not show up any time there's a bill up for vote and prevent the vote from being passed, then how does anything ever get passed in this country? If one side knows they will lose, why don't they just not show up for the vote? Could this become a common thing around the country? Could the Republicans have done this for Obamacare? 
</div>
 
 
 Remember, we don't live in a true democracy - we live in a republic. We elect representatives to reflect our interests, but not to serve as mindless echos of our latest poling numbers. This is partly a matter of practicality - nothing would ever get accomplished if every item was subject to a vote by all citizens, and partly as a means of protecting the minority from "the tyranny of the majority." Furthermore, none of those 33 state senators you refer to represent a completely homogenous population. The nineteen that have not "fled the state" have constituents that are as much against these measures as are the fourteen who have left, and vice versa. To truly "reflect the will of the people," all of those senators would have to attach disclaimers to their votes - "Mr. Chairman, I vote 43% in favor of his bill, 51% against it, and 6% undecided."
 
 There is also no requirement that I know of that every representative must vote on every bill brought before his/her chamber. I believe they are expected to vote if they are present, but there is a whole set of circumstances under which not voting is perfectly acceptable - including official travel, personal illness, etc.
 
 In this case, an argument can easily be made that the fourteen 'absent' senators are actually representing the will of their constituents in the best way they know how. They are being faced with legislation that they consider a particularly agregious attack against a certain sector of the population, and they are using the only tool available to them to prevent that legislation from being passed. It's an extraordinary situation, and they feel it requires an extraordinary response. I doubt that this will become a common tactic used for any bill that the minority objects to for the simple reason that it's going to be costly to those carrying out this action. At the very least, their opponents in the next election will be sure to make this a prime campaign issue. Thus, if you're going to risk political suicide you're going to make sure that it's for a cause that's worth the potential cost.
</div>

gatorbob · Mar 10, 2011

I understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. I never called Wisconsin or the United States as a whole a Democracy. I said that the governor and the senators were democratically elected. And they are elected to represent the people of their state. This is exactly my point. Whether or not this bill passes is not up for a majority vote of the people of Wisconsin. It is up for a majority vote among the democratically elected people that the residents of Wisconsin voted in. And some of those people aren't doing the job they were eleced to do. Each one of the senators has one vote (not 43% of a vote, just like you say). And each person has 1/33 of the total number of votes in the state. So isn't it that person's duty to place their vote when an issue has been called up? 
 
Yes, I know there are times when a vote can be missed, like you cite for travel or illness. These 14 senators aren't missing this vote becuase of an illness or a vacation. If they believe they are "representing the will of their constituents", they are doing it at the expense of the will of the people of the whole state. 14 senators represent 14/33 (or about 42%) of the total. So even if you can argue that these people are "representing the will" of their 42%, that means they are going against the will of the other 58%. The laws that get voted on affect all 100% of the people in Wisconsin or whatever state. Not just 42% of it. 
 
The whole reason we have democratic elections in this country is to put people in a position to vote on things for us. It seems extremely dangerous if our elected officals can arbitrarily choose when to do their jobs or not. Or when people with a minority opinion can hold up the entire legislative process. I'm talking in general terms here, not specifically only for this case. But obviously is does apply here. Because this is a Republic, shouldn't we want elected officials who uphold their end of the bargain (i.e. vote on our behalf)? If those elected officials enact laws we don't like, we the public then have the power to vote in different people next time. 
 
Basically, it just boggles my mind that so many people are protesting against the process of a democratically-elected constitutional republic...

gretriever · Mar 10, 2011

There are about 15 or so state senators who are having the recall process started on them. Pretty evenly split between Dems and Reps.

airehead · Mar 10, 2011

I remember this same thing (reps running to another state) happening in Texas a few years ago. I don't remember if it was Rep/Dems, I thought it was very unprofessional then.
 
The jpg is cute, but when I worked for a school system, the union was not so sweet and candy coated. They stated flat out who they were supporting for public office and strongly insinuated
we should vote likewise.
 
It was Jersey, so that might explain a bit.
 
Wisconsin isn't a "right-to-work" state, right? Does that mean you have to affiliate yourself with a union if you work at a job with a union? (like construction, or teaching, etc) I truly don't understand that.
 
And I don't understand this:
 
The United Autoworkers Union, which had a total net worth of $1.2 billion in 2007, owns a $27 million resort and conference center that features a $6 million upscale golf course, according to financial statements on file with the U.S. Department of Labor.
The retreat, called the Walter and May Reuther Family Education Center, is located on Black Lake in Onaway, Mich. The union-owned retreat includes the Black Lake Golf Club, valued at $6 million according to the financial statement.
 
Why does an organization that represents the working class need a $27 million resort? 
 
There is a lot I don't know or understand about unions. And getting the truth is harder than anything. If a news org is pro union facts get shuffled. If a news org is anti union facts get shuffled and we get screwed.

rlemert · Mar 10, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by GatorBob <a href="/forum/thread/72905/political-statement-of-the-day#post_1988145"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a> The whole reason we have democratic elections in this country is to put people in a position to vote on things for us. It seems extremely dangerous if our elected officals can arbitrarily choose when to do their jobs or not. Or when people with a minority opinion can hold up the entire legislative process. I'm talking in general terms here, not specifically only for this case. But obviously is does apply here. Because this is a Republic, shouldn't we want elected officials who uphold their end of the bargain (i.e. vote on our behalf)? If those elected officials enact laws we don't like, we the public then have the power to vote in different people next time. 
 
</div>
 
You might want to take a look some day at the rules for the United States Senate to see the various ways people "with a minority opinion can hold up the entire legislative process." The filibuster is the best-known technique, but it's not the only one.
</div>

Political Statement of the Day

Top Contributors this Month