DEMOCRAT UNION THUGS GONE CRAZY....

[Yssup Rider]

Do you honestly think Obama brought the unions to power, Unaliar? trolling for non Sequiturs to fling at POTUS while ignoring the building blocks of The American economy.

and while your pals ship more and more jobs overseas, fucking more and more American workers, it's somehow Obamas fault or the fault of the overwhelming portion of America who said YES to organized labor.

Now they're DEMOCRAT UNION THUGS! I submit most of you asswipes today are living off of some kind of government entitlement in one form or another.

Most of you really don't understand how the federal and state governments work. Evidenced by your endless ranting. It's just Fox talking points, shouted on high from the. big mouths of frightened little men.

I mean, is there anyone more inane on here than Seedman? Read what he says. Inane drivel.

Whirlyturd, a panicked Chicken Little.

Joe Bloe ... Waiting for the south to rise again.

COG ... Stands for nothing, but not without great explanation.

IBCRying... Mentally exhausted. NEeds to take a long vacation from this forum and post a few legitimate reviews.

Fellas...

The riot has begun... It was begun by you. Stand the fuck down!

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Here is something I just don't understand about liberal logic. When the topic is abortion, liberals are ALL about choice. Woman's right to choose, keep the gov't out of my womb, and so on. Now, I agree with them, so I have no problem with their belief that free choice is a good thing.

But why is it that personal freedom and choice are so near and dear to their hearts when the topic is abortion, but NOT when the topic is whether workers should be forced to join a union? Why are liberals so hell bent on FORCING workers to join unions and pay union dues? Why is a bill that would allow workers to choose whether to belong to a union described as being "anti-union"?

How do they manage to avoid choking on the stink of their own hypocrisy?

Someone will be along shortly to point out areas of Republican hypocrisy. That is the usual 5 year old response here. I get that. When stuck for a legitimate rebuttal, the go-to knee jerk response is always "Well your side said/did such and such". Spare me. If you want to talk about instances of Republican hypocrisy, open a new thread on it. There will be plenty of material to work with for a discussion.

But I guarantee there isn't a single liberal on this board with the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the double standard that freedom and personal choice are situational principles at best, and apply only when it is convenient. Anyone with the guts to prove me wrong?

[Chica Chaser]

I'm starting to like this one ^^

[SEE3772]

After the bankers are done people will be fighting over an old tire to burn that was made in china to cook their rat on a stick.

[Guest040616]

Sins of the Flesh: From the union's perspective, the right to work argument is similar to the concept of who should be paying taxes and whether certain income earners should have a choice whether to voluntarily pay taxes, or not.

When one pays taxes, it is not a matter of choice. In return for your tax dollars at work the various forms of government have a basic obligation to provide its citizens with basic infrastructure and security needs.

Rightly or wrongly, unions feel that the same rationale should apply in the workplaces they represent. If employees are going to benefit from the increased security provided by the various labor agreements bargained with the employers, all bargaining unit employees should pay equally for the privilege.

From the union's perspective, paying union dues, just as paying taxes, should not be a matter of choice. At least that is the way I understand the argument!

[Seedy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Do you honestly think Obama brought the unions to power, Unaliar? trolling for non Sequiturs to fling at POTUS while ignoring the building blocks of The American economy.

and while your pals ship more and more jobs overseas, fucking more and more American workers, it's somehow Obamas fault or the fault of the overwhelming portion of America who said YES to organized labor.

Now they're DEMOCRAT UNION THUGS! I submit most of you asswipes today are living off of some kind of government entitlement in one form or another.

Most of you really don't understand how the federal and state governments work. Evidenced by your endless ranting. It's just Fox talking points, shouted on high from the. big mouths of frightened little men.

I mean, is there anyone more inane on here than Seedman? Read what he says. Inane drivel.

Whirlyturd, a panicked Chicken Little.

Joe Bloe ... Waiting for the south to rise again.

COG ... Stands for nothing, but not without great explanation.

IBCRying... Mentally exhausted. NEeds to take a long vacation from this forum and post a few legitimate reviews.

Fellas...

The riot has begun... It was begun by you. Stand the fuck down!

First off sup, you can call me seedy, I like that better. Secong, yep, I am wacked. Third, I have never recieved a nickle, wooden, or otherwise from the government, but they sure as fuck have taken from me, cocksuckers...... I will bet a years wages every single one of the lowlife pricks in Michigan are democrat cocksuckers, and you damn well know I am right. Fucking thugs, that don't get their way turn to violence first. Well that is just typical of you dems, one day the tide will turn, and you fucks are not going to like what you deserve and recieve.....

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by seedman55

First off sup, you can call me seedy, I like that better. Secong, yep, I am wacked. Third, I have never recieved a nickle, wooden, or otherwise from the government, but they sure as fuck have taken from me, cocksuckers.

Seedy, assuming you use any form of transportation I would argue you have received a benefit from your tax dollars. Unless you walked through the woods to go to work and/or visit your ATF Provider you are receiving a form of compensation from your government.

That is just the basic rebuttal, it certainly gets much more complicated than that!

[Guest040616]

Sorry, double post!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

But I guarantee there isn't a single liberal on this board with the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the double standard that freedom and personal choice are situational principles at best, and apply only when it is convenient. Anyone with the guts to prove me wrong?

I am considered a liberal around these parts and I agree 100% with what you just said.

But that said from their POV, they are not forcing you to join the union, you do not have to work there. Kinda like the same argument the right uses on car insurance vs healthcare insurance.

Both sides practice situational principles and practice it well.

btw...I think it a chickenshit argument that both sides use when they are all for the States telling you WTF to do when it fits their beliefs. That is just transfering power over the individual from the Fed's to State government. I never understood that kind of logic.

[Whirlaway]

The people of Michigan have spoken; the issue now is how will the unions react. I hope they go batshit crazy, ala Wisconsin. If they do it will only weaken their position.

Obama never once defended the Wisconsin unions in their over the top occupations, demonstrations, work stoppages, violence, and other attempts at intimidation. In the end, the Wisconsin unions did themselves in.

Obama rushed to Michigan for his pro union photo op, but before the state legislature approved the right to work bill. Once signed into law, and unions go batshit, Obama will publicly throw them under the bus, but will privately have an open door policy for them at the White House.

[Yssup Rider]

don't forget that State governments can (and in most cases) are more whacky than the Feds. and where to they get their money?

Everybody who squeals for "states rights" aren't squealing for lower taxes per se. They just think that their local guys are going to be better at running things than their federal elected officials.


.theyve done a GREAT job in California and Texas, haven't they?

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Sins of the Flesh: From the union's perspective, the right to work argument is similar to the concept of who should be paying taxes and whether certain income earners should have a choice whether to voluntarily pay taxes, or not.

When one pays taxes, it is not a matter of choice. In return for your tax dollars at work the various forms of government have a basic obligation to provide its citizens with basic infrastructure and security needs.

Rightly or wrongly, unions feel that the same rationale should apply in the workplaces they represent. If employees are going to benefit from the increased security provided by the various labor agreements bargained with the employers, all bargaining unit employees should pay equally for the privilege.

From the union's perspective, paying union dues, just as paying taxes, should not be a matter of choice. At least that is the way I understand the argument!

Excellent! Thank you so much for an objective and informed response.

I don't think the Unions are completely off base with this argument. Just in case there is any confusion, it is fair to say that unions are responsible for creating the middle class to begin with. Good on them. Workers today do enjoy a higher standard of living, safer working conditions, an end to child labor practices, and other benefits that can be directly attributed to not just the hard work, but also the blood and sweat of union organizers.

However, the argument that non-union workers benefit from the efforts of unions no longer holds as much water as it once did. For one, statistics show that non-union workers tend to earn slightly lower wages. Also benefits for non-union workers tend to be slightly less than union workers. So workers who choose not to join a union do in fact give up some benefits and better pay for their choice. So its not as easy to make the case that non-union workers are riding the coat tails of the hard work of modern day unions.

Furthermore, and here is the point that alot of unions don't get. Workers object to their union dues being funneled into the political process. In this last election alone, millions of dollars in union dues were spent on campaigning and electioneering. That is NOT what union dues were intended to do. Once unions crossed the line into becoming highly visible political operatives, they kind of lose any right to demand that all workers join them and contribute to political causes that the worker does not support.

Thanks for a great response. I love a good debate, as long as we can keep the discussion on the topic at hand without taking the childish way out and getting personal

[Whirlaway]

[timpage]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Here is something I just don't understand about liberal logic. When the topic is abortion, liberals are ALL about choice. Woman's right to choose, keep the gov't out of my womb, and so on. Now, I agree with them, so I have no problem with their belief that free choice is a good thing.

But why is it that personal freedom and choice are so near and dear to their hearts when the topic is abortion, but NOT when the topic is whether workers should be forced to join a union? Why are liberals so hell bent on FORCING workers to join unions and pay union dues? Why is a bill that would allow workers to choose whether to belong to a union described as being "anti-union"?

How do they manage to avoid choking on the stink of their own hypocrisy?

Someone will be along shortly to point out areas of Republican hypocrisy. That is the usual 5 year old response here. I get that. When stuck for a legitimate rebuttal, the go-to knee jerk response is always "Well your side said/did such and such". Spare me. If you want to talk about instances of Republican hypocrisy, open a new thread on it. There will be plenty of material to work with for a discussion.

But I guarantee there isn't a single liberal on this board with the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the double standard that freedom and personal choice are situational principles at best, and apply only when it is convenient. Anyone with the guts to prove me wrong?

I'm fine with not forcing workers to join a union. If workers want lower wages, less benefits, less job security and total employer control over their lives, they should be free to go for it. At the same time, don't fool yourself into thinking that Republicans give one flippin' shit about workers. They don't. Their one and only concern is eliminating the unions as a source of contributions and organization for the Democrats.

Your analogy to abortion isn't a good one. Workers who are looking for jobs that require union membership still have a choice. Pregnant women denied the right to choose by the anti-choice crowd don't....

Regarding political contributions. It's the democrats who propose legislation that typically benefits union members. The republicans legislate for management. Do you think management is not making political contributions? Frankly, it's just another reason why workers should be union. Nobody else is going to look out for their interests. To the contrary.....

[Whirlaway]

This is laughable logic. Unemployed workers who don't won't to pay union dues are denied jobs by the pro union crowd. They have about the same choice as your woman in your phony analogy; actually they have a worse choice. A pregnant woman can always go across the border to another state and get the abortion. But an unemployed worker not so easily.

Originally Posted by timpage

...

Your analogy to abortion isn't a good one. Workers who are looking for jobs that require union membership still have a choice. Pregnant women denied the right to choose by the anti-choice crowd don't....

....