KD in CA Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Ah, a moral victory, eh? Spin, spin, spin. You just know that Hedd Case and peeBrain were all ready for a big victory celebration today. Oh how sad to be reduced to the 'moral victory' cliche! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 All the baggers here really looked closely at the results by gum. You can tell from their ecstatic premature ejaculation. Where is Fezmid when you need him? But let's really look at this shall we? They managed to expunge that tosspot Hopper who called teachers, firefighters, and cops "slobs". The one vote advantage they now have is pretty negligible with senator Schultz, who if you google Senator schultz you will pretty much find him described as a "RINO" who votes with democrats most of the time. The fact that the effort managed to succeed as much as it did is a shock since some of these districts have been Republican for in some cases a century. All the corporate lackeys and Coke bros graft isn't going to staunch the momentum for the eventual recall of Walker next year. Most of the current bagger government of Wisconsin originally got elected without giving any hint whatsoever during their campaigns of the workers rights crushing job they were planning. Pretty typical of the CON-servative bagger far right. Exactly. People yell and scream about Obama's Hope & Change campaign and in many cases rightfully so. However the Tea Party republicans ran on the same philosophy and the creation of jobs. Where are those jobs? You just know that Hedd Case and peeBrain were all ready for a big victory celebration today. Oh how sad to be reduced to the 'moral victory' cliche! :lol: No moral victory here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I read this found a few things interesting... A) taxpayers do not fund unions. The members do. B) You are simply one of those people who say "they get all of that in their benefits package and I don't, it'd not fair". Keep in mind that those same union members have been giving concessions and paying more towards their benefits. Funny how that is forgotten or just tossed aside. The best part is that you label democrats with fear mongering and scare tactics. Did you forget "Death Panels"? I also love how it's all about spending. Spending is just part of the problem and is something that every Democrat worries about. Fact of the matter is that there should be spending on the countries infrastructure. That in itself would create jobs. The other part that Republicans will never touch is revenue. Revenue HAS to be addressed IF they are truly serious about getting this country moving again. Oh my god you got that from Walkers own website. HAHAHAHA!!! How about: Kucinich (0:43): Let me ask you about some of the specific provisions in your proposal to strip collective bargaining rights. First, your proposal would require unions to hold annual votes to continue representing their own members. Can you please explain to me and members of this committee how much money this provision saves for your state budget? Walker (1:07):That and a number of other provisions we put in because if you are going to ask, if you are going to put in place a change like that, we wanted to make sure that we protected the worker's of our state so they had a right to know what kind of value they got out of it. It's the same reason we gave worker's the right to choose, which is a fundamental America right, the right to choose whether or not they want to be a part of a union, and whether they went up to a thousand-- Kucinich (1:26): Would you answer the question? How much money does it save Governor? Just answer the question. Walker: It doesn't save any. Kucinich asks about certain provisions of the bill and you attribute Wlaker's answer to the entire bill. You are not really going to continue this arguement are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Oh my god you got that from Walkers own website. HAHAHAHA!!! How about: 1) I'm not sure how much I want to trust dialogue that can't even form the plural of "worker" correctly. 2) One stipulation of the bill doesn't save money, which the governor volunteers. Wow! That must mean the whole bill doesn't save money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 No moral victory here. Nope, just a real victory for common sense and Wisconsin taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Kucinich asks about certain provisions of the bill and you attribute Wlaker's answer to the entire bill. You are not really going to continue this arguement are you? Provisions related to Collective Bargaining. Which has nothing to do their fiscal issues. Nope, just a real victory for common sense and Wisconsin taxpayers. Yeah, those common sense taxpayers that were getting killed by Collective Bargaining Rights. HAHAHA!! 1) I'm not sure how much I want to trust dialogue that can't even form the plural of "worker" correctly. 2) One stipulation of the bill doesn't save money, which the governor volunteers. Wow! That must mean the whole bill doesn't save money. So if that stipulation doesn't save money why have it in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Wow, the "Libtard Communist Union Groups". Just sad to even write that. You see, I didn't expect that you had the brain capacity to know that I was being sarcastically ignorant to counter BHead's ignorant statement. But thanks for proving what I already knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) I read this found a few things interesting... A) taxpayers do not fund unions. The members do. B) You are simply one of those people who say "they get all of that in their benefits package and I don't, it'd not fair". Keep in mind that those same union members have been giving concessions and paying more towards their benefits. Funny how that is forgotten or just tossed aside. A. It's a public sector union. Every penny the union or the members gets comes from the taxpayers. You probably think payroll taxes are just paid by the employer and thus have no impact on the employee too. It seems libs are incapable of considering more than one variable at a time. B. You're simply one of those people who decided union = good, and anything that falls outside of that paradigm is reflexively rejected. I personally appreciate the intellectual consistency of you guys. Apparently monopolies and corruption are bad, unless it's a union that has the monopoly and whose leadership has gamed the system to enrich the top union officials at the expense of the populace. Edited August 10, 2011 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 You see, I didn't expect that you had the brain capacity to know that I was being sarcastically ignorant to counter BHead's ignorant statement. But thanks for proving what I already knew. I almost pointed that out, but felt it would be unfair to deprive you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 A. It's a public sector union. Every penny the union or the members gets comes from the taxpayers. You probably think payroll taxes are just paid by the employer and thus have no impact on the employee too. It seems libs are incapable of considering more than one variable at a time. B. You're simply one of those people who decided union = good, and anything that falls outside of that paradigm is reflexively rejected. I personally appreciate the intellectual consistency of you guys. Apparently monopolies and corruption are bad, unless it's a union that has the monopoly and whose leadership has gamed the system to enrich the top union officials at the expense of the populace. Not to mention that everyone who's in a particular trade is FORCED to be part of the union. There's no choice; a part of their govt paycheck is garnished to fund the union bosses. The part of the bill that Pee is decrying actually provides a modicum of democracy where if a majority of workers feel they aren't being represented by the union, they can elect to dissolve it rather than be forced to support it. Now, a vote won't save money. But it does give a check/balance to workers. What the hell is so wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 HAHAHAHA... yeah, that union scam. Protect workers, fight for better pay and working conditions. Those horrible unions. HAHAHA!! Ever hear of a Pyrrhic Victory? Yeah, progressives. Fight for the right to be unemployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Provisions related to Collective Bargaining. Which has nothing to do their fiscal issues. Yeah, those common sense taxpayers that were getting killed by Collective Bargaining Rights. HAHAHA!! So if that stipulation doesn't save money why have it in there? Read your own post and you will get the answer to that. Walker at 1:07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Ever hear of a Pyrrhic Victory? Yeah, progressives. Fight for the right to be unemployed. Happened in the late nineties in Dansville, NY. Foster Wheeler asked for wage and other consessions or they would have to close the plant, the union voted against it (thinking the company was bluffing) they closed the plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Just another example of how everything liberals/unions put their hands on turns into a collassal failure. Should we really be surprised that Wisconsin overwhelmingly rejected fattening the unions coffers and slushfunds? Especially with the success unions have had in turning Milwaukee into Detroit 2.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Exactly. People yell and scream about Obama's Hope & Change campaign and in many cases rightfully so. However the Tea Party republicans ran on the same philosophy and the creation of jobs. Where are those jobs? seriously? why don't you just blame Bush still isnt that a better argument? afterall The "teaparty" congress elected in November of 2010 has been in office 8 months, and the "tea party" controls less than half of congress which is 1/3 of the government. The Obama and democrat/Reid controlled senate and until this year Pelosi controlled house had YEARS to trainwreck the economy and still control 66% of the government. who's fault is it again? The tea party couldnt even get a balanced budget ammendment passed (as an example of how little control they have at this point to create legislation that will promote a more job creation friendly climate because government CANNOT create jobs. unless it is growning government jobs themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Ever hear of a Pyrrhic Victory? Yeah, progressives. Fight for the right to be unemployed. Here in CT, state workers had a chance to vote for $1.6B (probably won't save even half that, but it's a start) in concessions or be faced with over 5,000 layoffs. And while 57% of members and 11 of the 15 unions voted for the deal, there needed to be a "supermajority" of 14 unions to pass the deal. So layoff notices went out and people freaked. The union bosses went back to Democratic guvna Dannel P. Malloy and said they wanted to change the voting rules (simple majority), which they did, and re-vote, and it's expected to pass. We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 You see, I didn't expect that you had the brain capacity to know that I was being sarcastically ignorant to counter BHead's ignorant statement. But thanks for proving what I already knew. Believe me I am not worried about what you think. Would be a complete waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Believe me I am not worried about what you think. Would be a complete waste of time. I'm sorry you weren't able to recognize sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted August 11, 2011 Author Share Posted August 11, 2011 interesting to note that all the baggers here with the exception of Maalox (whose posts were pretty idiotic anyways) really didn't want to bite on this one cuz they were probably shittingbricks before the results. As is obvious from my opening post I made no prediction either way. It wasn't meant as that kind of thread. What I find highly amusing is all the champion frontrunners of the PPP came crawling out of the woodwork only after the results were announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 interesting to note that all the baggers here with the exception of Maalox (whose posts were pretty idiotic anyways) really didn't want to bite on this one cuz they were probably shittingbricks before the results. As is obvious from my opening post I made no prediction either way. It wasn't meant as that kind of thread. What I find highly amusing is all the champion frontrunners of the PPP came crawling out of the woodwork only after the results were announced. Maalox is classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts