|
| Posted by: Frick
- [14082314] Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 15:08
Can anyone point me to some information that points out the negatives in a right to work state? It is currently a hot topic in my state and I'm curious as to why one party is so up in arms over it.
|
| | | 1 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 15:23
|
"Right to Work", is first and foremost, a misnomer. The State would still be a "work at will" environment. The theory behind right to work, is to remove the incentives (some say requirement) to join a union in order to hold a job, hence 'right to work'. I admittedly am not a labor specialist, but outside of the Actors Guild (SAG), I'm not aware of an employer where the worker is REQUIRED to join the union. Most plants I am familiar with, have both member and non-member labor, working side by side.
The real impetus behind the movement, is a GOP effort to dismantle unions.
|
|
| | |
| | | 3 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 16:02
|
The employer doesn't set the requirement, the union does in their contract with the employer. I was required to join a union once when I was working a summer job. It rubbed me the wrong way that I had to pay union dues for a job that I knew wouldn't last more than a few months. My wife had the option to be or not be in her union, but chose to based on the benefits the union offered. From my understanding, the bill only requires that union contracts can not require union membership, thus the right to work name.
This bill has caused to walkouts in the last year. While I'm sure that unions are very much against this bill, I don't see why most constintuents would be that opposed to it.
|
|
| | | 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 16:24
|
Being in the union, however, afforded you a higher rate of pay and other benefits by those who came before you.
"Right to Work" is simply the name of the GOP's efforts to break unions. Plain and simple.
|
|
| | | 5 | Tree
ID: 90572315
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 16:59
|
i hate it. living in Texas, i had to deal with an awful situation at my last job. it puts too many cards in the hand of the employer, and not enough in the hands of the employee.
it is not, by any means, a level playing field.
|
|
| | | 6 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 18:14
|
The GOP is not opposed to unions per se. They certainly are not out to break them all up.
They are against:
1) The corrupt nexus between public sector unions and politicians.
2) Unions spending dues against the political interests of their members. Giving employees the right to back out of unions gives them some leverage in how those dues are used.
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 18:44
|
. They certainly are not out to break them all up.
Good one. You might even believe it. But in the next breath there is no union you wouldn't have broken up, for one reason or another.
"Right to Work" is simply the name of the program the GOP has used to try to break up unions of any sort. You know, of course, that "Right to Work" legislation is not limited to public sector unions, yes?
|
|
| | | 8 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 20:51
|
there is no union you wouldn't have broken up, for one reason or another.
- PD
You have no basis for that.
I don't want to have either for myself but the fact that they are out there protects me and keeps employers treating employees reasonably just the same.
|
|
| | | 9 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 20:59
|
lol B, denying the painfully obvious now?
|
|
| | | 10 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 21:54
|
I left something out.
Unions are like guns. I don't want to have either for myself but the fact that they are out there protects me and keeps employers treating employees reasonably just the same.
Of course I'm not an employee so the fact that I might get unionized isn't a plus for me now, but for people in general the fact that a business has to face the threat of unionization keeps them paying honest wages and treating their people well.
Right to work provides a similar counterbalance to union excesses.
|
|
| | | 11 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Mon, Jan 23, 2012, 22:03
|
"Right to work", is a isnomer. The laws, provides no "right to work", but retains the current "at will" status. The very name, is a deliberate misrepresentation.
And come on B, the GOP has never met a union it didnt want to demolish. Nor have you. You have often, lamented the "cost" of unions, how 'you' have to pay this, or provide that benefit, blah blah blah. Do you have no shame what so ever?
|
|
| | | 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 00:03
|
You have no basis for that.
OK, then. Name 5.
|
|
| | | 13 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 08:34
|
Re: 4
By higher wages, yes I did make $2 more than minimum wage. By other benefits I'm not sure what you are referring to. There was no insurance coverage, our boss cut lunch and rest breaks short and tried to get us to work unpaid overtime. In my example the union did nothing more than leach some money from my paycheck. I had no more control over that then I did my tax withholdings.
I look at the bill as an incentive for unions to do more to help their members and possibly increase enrollment and member support. Not from blind followers, but by providing benefits that encourage employees to join.
|
|
| | | 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 09:52
|
Hard for unions to do that when they are driven from the workplace.
Imagine having all aspects of that job completely at the discretion of that boss of yours, as well as all jobs at the place. From your perspective you might not have gotten much out of it, but for those who depend on the job for their families the perspective is certainly very different.
Unions. of course, have been working hard to protect even minimum wages from those same people who would both get rid of unions and minimum wage in one fell swoop.
|
|
| | | 15 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 10:38
|
That is the thing, the union didn't do anything for me or the other employees and for most of the employees it was their primary occupation. The union wasn't trying to improve the working conditions or fight for a higher salary. The company that was contracting the company that I worked for had unions and required that contractors use "union" employees. Since I was basically just a day laborer they required that I join the union and pay dues. I'm sure that the union fought hard to help me get paid $5.50 instead of $4.25. It wasn't about protecting jobs, we were contractors who were coming in to do a specific job and once that job was over the work moved to another location that may or may not have required union membership.
I agree that unions can help employees negotiate higher wages and improve work conditions. But what happens when they have a monopoly powers and don't act in the best interest of their members? Why shouldn't employees have the right to make an informed decision on membership? The employer acts in a manner that an employee wants union protection and wage negotiation? That is their choice. An employee works hard and can independently negotiate a higher wage outside of the union, they shouldn't have that right? And those situations, while possibly rare, do happen. I worked for a company that would have happily paid 1 specific skill set in the factor much more than all of the other workers because the work required a very specialized skill set that was hard to find and train. The union wouldn't allow that and instead their pay was artificially lowered by the union. Should those employees have the choice to opt out of the union and negotiate their own pay rate?
|
|
| | | 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 11:51
|
It should be no surprise that union contracts aren't matching the interests of the summer workers. They are intended to help the long-term workers.
Independent workers really aren't able to negotiate higher wages or benefits. By and large, wages would fall through the floor for nearly all employees.
The only way to do that would be to eliminate the union entirely (which is the point of the "Right to Work" legislation). While I'm certain that some workers will be able to negotiate better contracts than others, by and large worker rights would disappear.
|
|
| | | 17 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 12:34
|
where did the 40 hr work week come from? Unions
Where did the idea of ANY vacation time originate? Unions
Where did the notion of benefits get its footing? Unions
Where did OSHA, find its start? Unions
Where does OT come from? Unions
Yeah, all things the GOP is in love with. No wonder they wanna bust unions at every opportunity.
|
|
| | | 19 | mjd
Leader
ID: 501381415
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 13:24
|
I can't believe (well, I can in this forum), why everything is so polarized and policically driven.
There are both advantages and disadvantages to both union and right to work. It all depends on the situation.
Back in the day unions were an absolute necessity. Now that there are child labor laws and minimum wage standards, not so much.
|
|
| | | 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 13:27
|
And mjd, do you relly think, with the input, money an dpower of super pacs, combined with the SCOTUS decision that corporations are individuals with rights; that if R2W took deep roots and unions were busted (which they would be), a GOP Congress and WH wouldnt do away with much of our current labor laws, to better serve their corporate masters?
|
|
| | | 21 | mjd
Leader
ID: 501381415
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 13:31
|
I currently live in a right to work state and that plus the usual tax incentive and arm twisting has attracted several large companies to either expand or move here, creating thousands of job over the next several years.
|
|
| | | 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 13:54
|
Tax incentives are really a different matter. I think cities in particular would do well to consider tax abatements and so on to attractive businesses, particularly areas where there is a ready workforce.
|
|
| | | 23 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 14:11
|
tax incentives, are in the long run, I think a bad idea. What happens is the company puts 100 cities into a low bidding war. Who will give the most and expect the least in return? Then the company up and moves from its current location, unemploying thousands, and goes elsewhere. 5 yrs, 7 yrs, 10 yrs later when the batements/incentives expire ... the process is repeated.
|
|
| | | 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 14:15
|
Bidding wars don't really exist on the municipal levels, sarge. They do sometimes for extremely large companies on state levels, but that is actually pretty rare.
In these high unemployment days, the necessity to keeping people employed and paying their own taxes typically far outweigh the short-term tax abatements. Having a company agree to, say, a five year tax abatement in return for a ten year agreement to stay there is almost always in the best interest of everyone long term, particularly when coupled with a larger development agreement.
As it is, companies have no incentive to stay in one place at all.
|
|
| | | 25 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 14:36
|
Have to disagree PD, when you say it doesnt happen much. It happens all the time, all across the country. As abatements expire "here", that company goes shopping and the 'bidding war' (for lack of a better term) starts anew. Same outfit that held locales hostage when their current plant was built, do it again.
|
|
| | | 26 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 14:56
|
I agree with pd that is happens more on the state level, but I agree with sarge that it happens far too often, to the US taxpayer''s detriment.
Here in washington state we give billions in tax breaks to corporations every year. The amount just about matches what we've had to cut from education and healthcare expenditures the last few years.
There certainly is bidding wars between the states and we all lose in aggregate. Look no further that what Boeing has done with Wa, Il , KS and SC.
|
|
| | | 27 | mjd
Leader
ID: 501381415
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 15:37
|
One of the issues with Boeing expanding to SC, a right to work state, is that the move from Wash St was retribution against the unions for all the various work stoppages by the unions over the years.
|
|
| | | 28 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 16:05
|
Right. For which I believe they are being sued.
|
|
| | |
| | | 30 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 16:24
|
Ah, that's right. Though it was more a settlement as it came with a sweet contract to entice them to withdraw.
|
|
| | | 31 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 16:41
|
You have no basis for that.
OK, then. Name 5. - PD
Unless you want to join the trolls who reflexively write liar after my every post, take my post #10 as my honest well thot out position and deal with it.
I don't know which neighbor has a gun and neither does the potential home invader. I don't know who my neighbor is who has a gun but I want to thank him.
I don't know which union threatens my next employer with either unionization or action. But they do provide the basic protection and incentive to treat me well. I do admittedly hope union action is rare and not excessively bullying, greedy, damaging to the company and shortsighted. In fact I hope my next employer if it ever happens isn't unionized but ensures that never happens by treating me like Apple or Google treats their employees. And therefore I begrudgingly thank the union movement to the extent they are a positive influence.
|
|
| | | 32 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 17:31
|
Boldwin, you've spent time after time, whenever unions are mentioned, to demonize them each and every time. You've literally never taken the time to differentiate between unions you like and unions you don't, except above, where you present yourself as believing that some unions are absolutely fine and that you support them. I'm pleased if you are saying now that you are not as black and white on this issue as you have previously presented yourself. But don't get all offended that your lack of nuance on this issue wasn't assumed.
sarge: Again, this typically happens on a state level (since they have the ability to do so) rather than a municipal level. Towns lack the ability to give much away but states certainly can do so, and often sweeten the pot with grant money to the companies.
|
|
| | | 33 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 18:39
|
Yeah, it starts state vs state, this is true. Property Tax Abatement for ex, has to come from the State level. Then you get metro areas within the involved State(s), kicking in or contributing, in order to entice that new plant into their market area vs another within the State.
Only people who win in those battles, are the stockholders. It aint the employees, cause (a) 1,000 just lost their jobs with the plants closing and (b) the newly hired 1,000 at the new plant, WILL lose thier jobs when the company pulls the same stunt again in a few years.
|
|
| | | 34 | C1-NRB
ID: 70502422
Tue, Jan 24, 2012, 23:55
|
Long post:
One of my first ever posts in the Politics forum was about unions and right to work issues. It was 11 or 12 years ago. The discussion was along the lines of baseball's union and the strike. I'll not open the pro athlete union can of worms in this thread, though.
I fall along the lines of sarge in post 17 and Boldwin in 33- Unions did good. The threat of their presence keeps big (and I mean truly BIG) businesses in line.
A little personal history. I live in Texas (r-t-w) were my grandfather was a union carpenter. He got a draft exemption during WW II because his foreman argued he was more valuable here building the plants and factories than as an infantryman. He showed up at work with his draftcard and told them it was his last week. The boss took his draftcard and told him, "You're not going anywhere. I'll take care of this," and went down to the draft office and did just that. Fast-forward some 30 years- my dad had a desk job (not management, not union) at a union plant. Every 6-8 years he would be called down to the shop floor to do the union workers' jobs while they were on strike. He would spend 7 hours of an 8 hour day reading the newspaper and playing dominoes while waiting on work orders to come through, all the while wondering, "Those guys are striking for, what exactly?"
I bet unions just salivate at how much they could "help" all the poor, mistreated oilfield workers out here where I am now. There are guys making close to six figures working on rigs right this minute (check the timestamp- it's night.) And if they keep their noses clean, both figuratively and literally, they keep working on the same rig. But I hear from crewchiefs all the time that they have to dismiss guys every week because they a) can't pass a drug test, or b) show up to work under the influence. Pre-OSHA they'd be allowed to keep on going- good, bad, right, wrong, or otherwise. Do you know what those workers do? Take a week or two off, get clean, and go to work on the rig the next lease over because the bosses on that rig don't care about the past- they need an experienced lineman, pipefitter, or welder right now.
You think these guys want a union taking a bite off the top so they can have guaranteed employment? The market here guarantees employment. The only unemployed in West Texas are those who choose that lifestyle. Every business out here is hiring. They advertise on the radio that if you want to drive a truck they'll pay for your CDL. KFC is having, and I quote, a "Job Fair" on Saturday, begging for workers. I saw another marquee sign for fastfood delivery drivers advertising a pay range of $15-$17 per/hour. There's not a single minimum wage job that can afford to pay minimum wage here- they all have to pay, wait for it... what the market demands. And it is a laborer's market right now. The housing bubble hasn't burst out here, either; they can't build fast enough. Any guesses as to why? Nobody wants to work construction because they can make more money in the oilfield! Some companies are setting up mobile home parks for their employees so they have a place to live. My wife talked to a guy that had hitch-hiked from Louisana (I think), got a job, but didn't have a place to stay. I know it's not like this everywhere and it won't be like this forever. But right now this area is riding the wave again.
Sorry. I got off on a tangent at the end. My point is- if you want to work you shouldn't have to pay for the priviledge. And any more, that's the impression I get from unions: they exist by and large so they can collect dues to keep existing. Go ahead and tell me I'm way off, but that's where I'm coming from.
|
|
| | | 35 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 00:14
|
C1-NRB hits the nail on the head. At one time Unions were absolutely needed. I'll be surprised if anybody denies that.
Now however, their purposes are often served. Yes, there are plenty of situations where they do good. There are plenty of situations where they are still needed.
However there are just as many situations where you look and say, "wtf is a union doing here? Why does it exist?"
Right-to-work gives the best compromise. It allows unions to exist. In fields/markets where they are needed, they will flourish. Where they are needed....they'll go away. Or at the least the people who don't need them won't lose more of their paycheck to them.
The states that require you to join a union if one exists I just have to ask one question - Why? Of the good unions do which benefit is so compelling that its needed in every single situation(or even a vast majority of situations) that I have no choice but join that organization that I fundamentally disagree with because I couldn't cope with my job without their help?
|
|
| | | 36 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 08:46
|
Re: 34 & 35
That echos my thoughts on the bill. It gives employees a choice and provides incentives for unions to do more than just collect dues.
|
|
| | | 37 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 10:17
|
I live in a right to work state. Being forced to join a union rarely offers a net positive unless you're a miner or government employee.
And I fully agree with Boldwin in opposition to Unions spending dues against the political interests of their members
One negative here is the proliferation of construction work performed by undocumented workers, since there is virtually no unionization of the construction trades. Developers hire subcontractors based too often on price instead of quality. This is especially true in framing, drywall, painting and landscaping, not so much in plumbing and electrical.
Unionization of the construction trades is not, IMO, the answer. If the developer was responsible for all the subs using legal workers, or risk fines, you'd see the number of illegals working in construction drop dramatically. And these are jobs that Americans want, and subcontractors are losing these contracts to companies that break the rules.
Keep in mind that many of these undocumented workers have been working for these subs for years and are valuable employees. Many speak English, have families and contribute positively to their communities. There should be a path for these employees to work and live legally in this country without the constant fear of imprisonment or deportation.
That would give a lot more meaning to the phrase "right to work."
|
|
| | | 38 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Sat, Jan 28, 2012, 11:22
|
I can't remember the last time two posters agreed with me consecutively.
The room is spinning. Colors fading......///////////
|
|
| | | 39 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Tue, Dec 11, 2012, 19:26
|
BUTT for the lazy.
|
|
| | | 43 | Boldwin
ID: 331138143
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 11:38
|
David Webb @davidwebbshow
Pres @BarackObama when white union thugs yell #Nigger & #UncleTom while destroying a #black man's hot dog stand I expect you to speak.
The David Webb Show on SiriusXM Patriot 125 Mon-Fri 9pm-12am
|
|
| | | 44 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 20:24
|
Union activist threatens MI gov: "We'll be at your daughter's soccer game"
|
|
| | | 45 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 05:13
|
Those trying to blame Crowder for the attack on him and the people in the tent, can chew on this.
|
|
| | | 46 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 06:07
|
Actually that video supports exactly the point I made about Crowder in the Giffords thread.
|
|
| | | 47 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 06:34
|
Excellent finds B.
Exposes these union thugs for exactly what they are......Domestic terrorists.
This kind of thuggery only makes the case for doing away with all unions once and for all.
If the only way they can get their way is through violence and threats of violence then good riddance.
|
|
| | | 48 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 06:43
|
Domestic terrorists
Right. And space aliens.
|
|
| | | 49 | Boldwin
ID: 1611461416
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 07:04
|
MITH
In what possible universe does that video support what you said about Crowder?
|
|
| | | 50 | weykool
ID: 339121212
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 07:26
|
MITH
In what possible universe does that video support what you said about Crowder?
Apparently his little universe inhabited by space aliens.
The fact that the radical left cant bring themselves to condemn the use of violence by these union thugs speaks volumes.
Threatening to show up at a kids soccer game?
Are you kidding me?
Aliens indeed.
|
|
| | | 51 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 07:33
|
Upon the following declaration I hereby officially condemn the use of violence by union thugs, be they domestic terrorists or space aliens:
CONDEMNED!
And yes the video proves exactly what I said about Crowder. Or more accurately, it answers the questions I asked about him, exactly as I suspected they would be answered.
|
|
| | | 54 | Boldwin
ID: 1611501822
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 00:17
|
Note to unions:“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
| | | 55 | biliruben
ID: 21841115
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 00:26
|
See: My Taxes, and any governmental institution that references god. Or all those friggin' Marines commercials during football games. Or about a thousand other things that piss me off on a regular basis. I don't find them either sinful or tyrannical
It's called society. Even union membership is membership in a society. Go live in a cave and eat moss in solitude if you don't have any interest in making allowances and showing flexibility due to what should be obvious to even the most strident simpleton: Nobody else thinks exactly the way I do. That doesn't mean that having common associations and groups are sinful. It means you are human.
|
|
| | | 56 | Boldwin
ID: 1611501822
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 00:44
|
Unions should not have the power to tell me I have to fund their politics or I can't work.
|
|
| | | 57 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 01:49
|
I cant recall, the last time I saw a "closed shop", where union membership was mandatory.
|
|
| | | 58 | Boldwin
ID: 141135191
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 02:40
|
That's why they were punching Steven Crowder in the face. For the ability to use conservative member's union dues to promote anti-conservative agendas.
|
|
| | | 59 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 08:47
|
Re: 57
Depends on in if you have been in a Right To Work state. I knew of several where I've been. I even worked in one when I was younger (granted that is no longer recently.) That is kind of the point of Right To Work, unions can't require membership as a condition of employment.
I like Right To Work, but I have mixed feelings about not allowing union dues to be deducted from paychecks.
|
|
| | | 60 | Tree
ID: 531119199
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 10:19
|
post 55 is right on.
part of being a good citizen is sometimes contributing to things you don't believe in.
i'd rather we not give the military so much money.
i'd rather we spend a bit more on mass transit and bike lanes, and a bit less on highway funds.
i'd rather we stop giving tax-exempt statuses to religious institutions clearly using their pulpit for political reasons.
but, i am a citizen of this country, and i pay taxes. some of what i pay goes to things i believe in, and some of what i pay doesn't.
throwing a tantrum or mis-quoting our founding fathers won't change any of that.
|
|
| | | 61 | Boldwin
ID: 5311401914
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 15:44
|
If you guys think being forced to pay for ideas and policies you disagree with is so noble, let's make liberals pay for civilized ideas and agendas.
|
|
| | | 62 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 16:04
|
we already pay for things we disagree vehemently with. As do you. But you are the one whining about it.
|
|
| | | 63 | Boldwin
ID: 5311401914
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 16:11
|
You can think of a situation where you have to fund conservative causes in order to hold your job?
|
|
| | | 64 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 16:14
|
I'm in the car biz B. Better than 80% of dealership owners, self identify as Conservative Republicans. The GOP controls the House, which in turn comtrols the governmental purse strings. That GOP, funds a shit load I disagree with, and refuses to fund a shit load I agree with. In the work place, I am well advised to pay my taxes to fund what the GOP wants to, and keep my yap shut, or since "right to work' is a lie and employment is at "the employers will", .....
|
|
| | | 65 | Boldwin
ID: 5311401914
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 16:18
|
And your employer asks for donations to conservative causes or you are fired?
|
|
| | | 66 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 16:51
|
taxes B...reread 64 above. My taxes pay for umpty-ump shit, I disagree with. For ex, tax credits for home schoolers, and for parochial schoolers. I pay taxes to support the local public school. I should NOT be paying taxes, to support the local parochial (religious school, or the parent who opts to home school.
You need to get off your quest for 'gotcha' moments, and begin critically thinking.
|
|
| | | 67 | Tree
ID: 3711491916
Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 17:49
|
You can think of a situation where you have to fund conservative causes in order to hold your job?
see post 60. i absolutely have to fund those causes to hold my job.
|
|
| | | 68 | Boldwin
ID: 911502615
Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 06:54
|
|
|
| | | 69 | Tree
ID: 0271015
Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 10:09
|
re post 45, from Baldwin - Those trying to blame Crowder for the attack on him and the people in the tent, can chew on this.
and those who continue to defend and make heroes out of people like Crowder and James O'Keefe, people who lie and manipulate, people who edit video to support a lie, and so on an so forth, can chew on this:
The Union Protester Who Punched Fox News Comedian Steven Crowder Was Acting in Self-Defense, Will Not Be Prosecuted
Then came the unsurprising revelation that the video was misleadingly edited to make Crowder look like an innocent, if obnoxious, victim.
That heavily edited video, which Fox News themselves released, is the reason why, on Monday, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III announced he will not press charges against the protester, who Dunnings said was trying to defend himself.
I'm sure Baldwin will come up with some sort of weak defense of Crowder, the same sort of defense that makes him feel good about himself when he praises Crowder, O'Keefe, and cop killers as heroes.
|
|
| | | 70 | Boldwin
ID: 10259219
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 11:07
|
The Gawker is not allowed it's own reality. Crowder was physically assaulted, had not initiated the fight and is due his day in court to prosecute that gleefully criminal union goon.
|
|
| | | 71 | Tree
ID: 131137414
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 13:38
|
Yea. gawker doesn't make the decision to prosecute. the prosecutor does, and he saw that crowder not only provoked the man who punched him, but edited the video to make himself appear innocent.
again, truth, reality, and honesty are not principles you hold dear.
|
|
| | | 72 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 13:58
|
had not initiated the fight
Hilarious how the standards change! What was the standard of proof that Kenneth Gladney was assaulted again?
Allow me to refresh: "What is confusing you, Mith is that Gladney is wearing a light blue shirt and he is on the ground from the very first frame of that video."
Of course we remember how that story turned out.
In this case, we know that the union guy was on the ground before we saw him throw a punch at Crowder.
We also know that the video Crowder presented to the world omitted any inclusion of the union guy on the ground prior to throwing a punch at Crowder.
And we know that Crowder was publicly talking up his MMA training prior to the event.
Were the roles reversed, we all know exactly what Old Boldy's line would be.
|
|
| | | 73 | Boldwin
ID: 10259219
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 16:59
|
On the plus side, welcome to the ranks of the conspiracy theorists!
|
|
| | | 74 | Mith
ID: 412561115
Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 17:53
|
I posit no theory except that of your embarrassing, unscrupulous nature. But that's really more of a constant display around these parts.
|
|
|
|