Now… I understand your calling differing views from your own “stupidity” (typical statist trait), but where is this anger that you speak of?
If you consider all of you jackasses sitting around in a circle-jerk “informed discussion”…
Citizens United gives Unions and corporations the right to spend whatever they want for political campaigns. It is not equal because corporations have a hell of a lot more money than unions.
The next step was a huge assault on unions. Remove their ability to collectively bargain and collect dues. Than you have no unions. Then corporations will have all the access. The Repub governors are trying to destroy unions. They Are also attacking the last large organizations that fund and work for the Dems. I suppose that is coincidence.
This is not a fiscal decision. It is political. Is anyone dumb enough to think unions are responsible for the fiscal problems of the states? It is revenue. Endless tax cuts and corporate tax dodging is “starving the beast”. That was telegraphed by the Repubs long ago. Why would anyone feel surprised.?
What crazy claims? That arbitration among private employees goes against the public interest? Why should I have to “cite” something that is as plain as the nose on your face? How about you “site” something that disproves mine and FDR’s “crazy claims”.
…
I don’t think you understand what arbitration is in the public sector or how it works. If an employee has a dispute with management - both of which, note, are civil servants and paid for by public funds - it may be decided by an arbitrator agreed upon by both sides. Arbitrators are not permanent positions: they are recruited to mediate disputes in specific cases. Often they are retired judges or other officials. So since both sides in the dispute are public employees, both wish different outcomes, and both sides have agreed upon the arbitrator, how is this a conflict of interest? Whose interests are being trashed? Arbitration is a more cost-effective and timely way of settling disputes than filing lawsuits which may spend years being resolved.
No. Differing views are fine. For instance: Abortion, pro or against. That’s an opinion and people can believe different things.
However, people who form their opinions based on snippits of information that are not true, and who resist correction when shown that their information is not true, those people are stupid.
Being uninformed is curable. Choosing not to accept legitimate information is stupid. Angry? Depends on the particular post.
Here is more of that leftist paranoia… No one has proposed breaking private unions. I believe that most people are firmly behind the private citizen’s right to organize.
The one group that you’ve conveniently left out; the taxpayer. But hey, screw them, right?
The providing class (you know, the ones that actually produce?) are just a bunch of chumps, right?
I would have hoped it would be apparent to you by now that not all taxpayers agree with you. Goverment employees provide valuable societal services.
I can confirm they are NOT the same person.
And I am just LOL at this thread…how does it feel that the Messiah is going to be WORSE historically-speaking the President Carter was?
I want to make one thing clear, I VOTE THE ISSUES, not the party! I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans alike (and even an independent, back in 1980) but the Messiah is by FAR the worse thing that has EVER happened to this country.
Oh yeah, back to the topic. 
And that’s what really bugs you, isn’t it? That there is a community of jackasses circle jerking without any respect for your values? As you see that community growing and thriving, the thought that they might be influencing others and enlarging the power of the progressive movement drives you just a little crazy, doesn’t it? Especially while conservatives subject themselves to endless purity rituals, whittling down their own numbers by excommunicating RINOs or anyone who exhibits any independent thought or moderate reason.
Is that what’s bothering you, Bunkie?
Well. I know this is the pit and all, but since you’ve come in here and made some bold statements presented as facts, it does seem reasonable to ask you back them up with something. Saying “It’s as plain as the nose on your face” keeps you solidly in bare-assertion-fallacy-land, where you cannot be taken seriously.
Why should we take your word for it that collective bargaining goes against the public interest? Frankly that looks stupid on the face of it- yeah, let’s prevent people from organizing in any meaningful way for the ‘public interest’. The burden of proof is on you.
Plus your behavior has the added feature of changing the subject away from how stripping away collective bargaining balances the books. Kind of like you aren’t answering elucidator’s questions directly either. Dodgy behavior + nothing to back up your position = you got nothin’.
Way to change the subject.
Answer the questions, fool.
Which would be a relevant point IF we lived in a democracy. We DON’T live in a democracy. A Representative Republic is not a “mob rules” society. As our fearless leader pointed out last year, elections have consequences.
While most government employees do provide valid services, their value and worth are up for debate and to allow them to organize and hold the public trust hostage for personal gain is most definitely NOT in the public’s interest.
You’d be amazed by how much government you’ll never miss.
Also an appeal to authority fallacy re: FDR
Project much?
Bothering ME? Hardly…
It seems you are the one “bothered” by an opinion that may possibly go against your collective grain.
But not to the extant that I join a little posse to search it out on other messageboards. Really getting under your skin, are we?
And just how would you know that? :dubious:
Well, you are certainly an odd duck, aren’t you? Joined June 2005 and a post count of one. Held back all that time and then broke your silence for this “Messiah” glurge?
And, yes, since you brought it to our attention, how do you know?