No because I don’t think you have a clue how being a teacher works.
You seem to think that the public whom I apparently “work for” or elected politicians in the state capital or even the school board have some sort of direct supervision of a teacher. They don’t. My supervisor is my principal and on a few occasions I had to deal directly with an assistant superintendent. The idea that an elected official and a teacher has any sort of working relationship is ridiculous.
In America we believe in the right of free association. We don’t have to agree with the goals of an organization to understand that it should be allowed to exist and advocate for whatever it likes. The fact that you think its ok to demand the breakup of an organization simply because you happen to disagree with their political goals is more than a bit troubling in a free society if you ask me.
You mean like the US Chamber of Commerce?
Someone should explain the difference to you between punching up and punching down. Teachers need a union because they are inherently weak. Bankers don’t need a union because they are inherently powerful. Attacking the weak party is known as punching down, and is considered unseemly. Attacking a powerful interest is not, because they can defend themselves.
That is the difference between conservatives and liberals.
Nope.
Sorry to disappoint you.
I’m sure I would be. Because there’s a fundamental difference between, say, a union of bankers or CEOs or billionaires and a union of teachers. One teacher, on their own, is essentially powerless. Them unionizing is necessary to have any significant influence over their own employment. One billionaire on their own has a fuckton of power, to the point where such a union would be incredibly destructive to our democracy (and, indeed, almost certainly has been).
So do you think bankers who form a group to represent them, and spends money, and lobbies, should be treated differently from a teacher’s union? I don’t.
Well put, though I would have said it more directly and angrily, with a “BULLSHIT!” or too. 
A billionaire, like the rest of us, has only one vote. No more power than anyone else.
He’s got an awful lot of extra voices, though.
On one hand, you’re technically right.
On the other hand, if I want everyone to vote for a certain candidate, my reach is internet forums, blogs, my immediate friends, the people I have on facebook, et cetera. If a billionaire wants everyone to vote for a certain candidate, their reach is, um, everywhere. The nightly news, cable TV, they can hire reporters to dig up dirt or run hit pieces, run political ads, funnel huge amounts of money to candidate’s campaigns, and in the most egregious cases, run an entire massive news network including TV, internet, radio, and newspapers, dedicated essentially to destroying any opposing viewpoint and turning as much of the electorate as possible to their ways.
So yeah, slight difference.
So? The people decide who to vote for, and why. They are responsible for their votes. If they want to vote for the billionaire who put more messages in front of them on TV, that’s their choice - and their right.
So what? Freedom of speech means you get to talk as much as you want to and as much as you can.
Hahaha thanks, well I was hoping to get an actual substantive reply this time, rather than just what amounts to complaining about the tone of the message. We’ll see how that works out I guess.
I do.
Why?
And how do you pick and choose who is treated which way? And more important, how do you justify it on constitutional grounds?
The same way the governor of Wisconsin went after the public-sector unions and not corporate lobbying groups. As to how to choose, I support labor unions, I do not support corporate lobbying groups. I don’t see any constitutional problem with that.
Huh? Not sure how that fits here.
I didn’t ask you if you support them, I asked if you think they should be treated differently, meaning whether they should have different rights, etc.
A bankers’ group would not be a union. Who are they supposed to be collectively bargaining with? I agree that their lobbying efforts should be treated the same way, but a union performs a function than a group of banks cannot. You might as well ask whether a bank and a police officer should have the same rights.