Collective bargaining at itsfinest

[Uncensored2008]

The union is not the problem the person who agreed with these conditions may be though.

The union bribed them to agree to it.

Do you refuse to take more than you can get in a business negotiation?

Do you bribe the other side in business negotiation? Would you be happy to find that your significant other was accepting kickbacks from the bank when negotiating the rate of a refi? Would you wonder how you ended up with a 71% APR when everyone else was paying 4.5%

The unions bribe the politicians they are negotiating with - openly. The politicians then give away the store. We have become a kleptocracy, run by a an extremely corrupt bureaucracy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually due to the fact that you are the one making the claims based on your source the burden of proof is on YOU.



They are valid questions considering the claims made by you and your link. Making lame excuses for your avoidance of these questions doesn't change the fact that you are avoiding them.





same to you.




Uh in case you missed it, your attempts to "point out" something is making a claim based on your own interpretation of your unsubstantiated source.





Do you have the number of first year teachers?? Do you have a comparison between her and the teachers who got to keep their jobs?? You continue to make claims that you don;t have the facts to back up. Imagine that.

BTW funny how you gloss over the FACT that you were WRONG when you tried to claim that she was "teacher of the year" as you edit my post and delete the aprts that you lack the integrity to respond to.



I guess you forgot that you just made up "facts" to suit the needs of your argument. LOL




Are you assuming that they stayed at the same level of experience as they had when they were a first year teacher?? The point is to compare where they are now. Not to be dishonest and compare her first year to their first year when they actually have at least 3 years of experience under their belts. Are you typical this disheonst as you try to spin and CYA??





Imagine that, more lame excuses for your avoidance and dishonesty. How typical.




The burden of proof is on YOU. You started this thread attacking collective bargaining using a BLOG as your source when your source doesn't ahve the info to support the claims it makes which you are using as the foundation for your attack thread. No one has to prove you wrong. Either provide the substance to support the attacks and claims that you have made or admit that you can't. A person of integrity would do one of those two.




So quoting your own posts as you try to pretend that you never posted them and asking you for clarification is what you consider misrepresentiung your position?? LOL Furthermore, i have not insisted that everything you have posted is wrong. I merely exposed the holes and gaps in your arguments and the claims made by the blog that you cited and asked you to provide substance to support said claims and arguments.
Your response has been to deny that you made claims even when they have been posted to shww otherwise and claim that others have to prove you wrong.



I provided a link that showed that they were cut and pasted from walker's own talking points memo, what more proof do you need?? They didn't even bother rephrasing the talking points. LOL

Furthermore, what have you provided to substantiate ANY of the claims made in your source that you are now running away from?? Anything??

In case you missed it, providing a link to a blog and claiming that what is presented is fact doesn't make it so.

Let me make this simple for you.

I posted a link that you took exception to. Since then you have demanded that I defend things I did not say, and made the the unsupported assumption that the details in the link I posted are wrong. If you just want to argue about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims I suggest that you go to the blog and argue with the guy who wrote it.

OMG you really are that retarded. YOU started this thread to attack collective bargaining and unions and YOU chose to use that unsubstantiated link as the foundation for your entire argument. Without it you have nothing to support the very core of your argument.

IF you were honest and had any integrity, you only have two choices. One is to admit that you can't substantiate the very core of your argument and admit that your have nothing real to offer and the other is to actually try to back up your own claims and the claims of the blog that is the foundation of your argument.

The act of providing a link proves NOTHING.

Claiming that what you and your link presented is FACT when neither has been substantiated is flat out dishonesty.

Trying to put the onus of disproving your claims and the link that you cited onto others when you have failed to substantiate either is "argue(ing) about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims". You counter your own spin.

This thread began with you, yor claims, your link and your interpretation of that link and therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

Gotcha!
Look docky, you are pissed off because others have the nerve to criticize the sacred cow unions.
You stated windbag's source was "unsubstantiated". Then you demanded he produce proof of the link's validity and factual content.
First, "unsubstantiated in this context is an adjective. That renders it to the level of opinion. The OP is not required to refute your opinion. You read the contents of the link, decided you didn't like it and went on a crusade. A fact is a fact no matter from whcih source.
The OP did not make a "claim" He produced a link that contained facts to the contrary of the union position.
At the end of the day this is all very much pointless. Unions are dying. Less than 8% of all private sector workers are members of unions. And while over 30% of public sector workers are union members ,these unions with their lobbyists, powerful political ties, high wages and gold pated benefit packages are under attack from conservative politicians who have heard and are reacting to the call of angry taxpayers who have told their elected officials ENOUGH! We will no longer fund the high cost low value system.
The party is over for public worker unions. Time to rein in these wages and benefits.
There is no more money!

 

[Big Fitz]

Unions are dying.

And in some cases, being put down to ease their pain and ensure public safety from the mad dogs they've become.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Unions are dying.

And in some cases, being put down to ease their pain and ensure public safety from the mad dogs they've become.

the required injection of sodium pentathol has been adminstered

 

[drsmith1072]

Then that is an issue to be dealt with via the democratic voting process. No need for people to throw a bitch fit about it.

So person "A" bribes person "B" who promises to take more from person "C" and give it to "A" as long as "A" campaigns for "B" to get into office?

There is a term for this... Oh yeah "corruption." Well you dims have always been big advocates of corruption, so your position is no surprise.

So it's exactly like a politician, such as WI governor walker, taking money from business interests, like the koch brothers, and then passing legislation that benefits their business interests??

So what is it that you have a problem with again because it can't be what you are complaining about because the right is just as guilty as you accuse the left of being? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

If we did away with every government employee union worker today, how long would the line be for those jobs with benefits, wages and conditions at a level, significantly lower than what they receive now, consistent with what their bosses, THE TAXPAYERS, can afford?

Well do you have an answer or are you just blowing smoke as you try to make arguments against american workers that you can't support??

 

[drsmith1072]

The unfunded union government defined pension funds for the 7 metro Atlanta counties is:
ONE BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS.
And guess who fights to the death the necessary change from defined to contributory plans?
That would be idiot dumb ass UNIONS.
Unions do not care about American citizens or the families of the employees they claim to "represent".
They are bankrupting the nation and making the families of their members pay the freight.

Uh isn't GA a right to work state?? So what unions are you talking about?? A few weeks back I remember the right was attacking obama claiming that he defends unions while federal employees are not allowed to unionize so do you have anything of substance to offer??

 

[drsmith1072]

Let me make this simple for you.

I posted a link that you took exception to. Since then you have demanded that I defend things I did not say, and made the the unsupported assumption that the details in the link I posted are wrong. If you just want to argue about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims I suggest that you go to the blog and argue with the guy who wrote it.

OMG you really are that retarded. YOU started this thread to attack collective bargaining and unions and YOU chose to use that unsubstantiated link as the foundation for your entire argument. Without it you have nothing to support the very core of your argument.

IF you were honest and had any integrity, you only have two choices. One is to admit that you can't substantiate the very core of your argument and admit that your have nothing real to offer and the other is to actually try to back up your own claims and the claims of the blog that is the foundation of your argument.

The act of providing a link proves NOTHING.

Claiming that what you and your link presented is FACT when neither has been substantiated is flat out dishonesty.

Trying to put the onus of disproving your claims and the link that you cited onto others when you have failed to substantiate either is "argue(ing) about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims". You counter your own spin.

This thread began with you, yor claims, your link and your interpretation of that link and therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

Gotcha!

Got what?? What do you have?? Anything of significane? NOPE.

Look docky, you are pissed off because others have the nerve to criticize the sacred cow unions.

Actually NO but thank you for dishonestly trying to insert your opinion as mine which i have already explained. It's also interesting how you, like the hack that you are defending, failed to address any of the questions or arguments that I made concerning the claims made by the blog and the author of this thread.

You stated windbag's source was "unsubstantiated". Then you demanded he produce proof of the link's validity and factual content.

Yes and that is usually the standard on this board. It's only when the author cannot substantiate his claims and those of his source that he demands that others prove him wrong. Think of it this way. If a "lefty" started a thread using a blog as his only source and began making claims based on the claims of said blog as he then claimed it was fact wouldn't you demand proof of said claims??

First, "unsubstantiated in this context is an adjective. That renders it to the level of opinion. The OP is not required to refute your opinion. You read the contents of the link, decided you didn't like it and went on a crusade. A fact is a fact no matter from whcih source.
The OP did not make a "claim" He produced a link that contained facts to the contrary of the union position.

So if I present a link to blog that claims all right wingers on this board are crossdressers then it's a fact until you can prove that all of them are not what my blog says they are??

It has been said many times over that the source does matter and the right is always quick to dismiss a source that they find questionable as they demand that those who cite questionable links provide proof. So I find it funny that you are so willing to accept the info from a blog that does nothing to provide anything of substance to back up the claims it makes as if it is fact and beyond question.

At the end of the day this is all very much pointless. Unions are dying. Less than 8% of all private sector workers are members of unions. And while over 30% of public sector workers are union members ,these unions with their lobbyists, powerful political ties, high wages and gold pated benefit packages are under attack from conservative politicians who have heard and are reacting to the call of angry taxpayers who have told their elected officials ENOUGH! We will no longer fund the high cost low value system.
The party is over for public worker unions. Time to rein in these wages and benefits.
There is no more money!

the funny thing is that you make arguments based on assumptions that cannot be proven at this time. According to the polls, at this time, the voices of the taxpayers are against what walker did and it remains to be seen if it was even legal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So it's exactly like a politician, such as WI governor walker, taking money from business interests, like the koch brothers, and then passing legislation that benefits their business interests??

Assumes facts not in evidence (nor in existence.)

Feel free to demonstrate such quid pro quo, though.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well do you have an answer or are you just blowing smoke as you try to make arguments against american workers that you can't support??

If you fired every government employee in Wisconsin, cut pay and benefits by 25% across the board, it would take about 5 minutes to fill the jobs, with thousands of applicants wishing they had been selected.

 

[drsmith1072]

So it's exactly like a politician, such as WI governor walker, taking money from business interests, like the koch brothers, and then passing legislation that benefits their business interests??

Assumes facts not in evidence (nor in existence.)

Feel free to demonstrate such quid pro quo, though.

Uh did you provide proof of your claims?? Nope so where do you get off demanding them from me when you fail to substantiate your own arguments??

BTW, Here is some of my evidence that they gave him money.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1

The Plum Line - Americans for Prosperity to run ads in Wisconsin

The Koch brothers, Governor Walker, and the attacks on public workers - New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

The Plum Line - Americans for Prosperity to run ads in Wisconsin

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Koch Brothers' Stooge? | Politics Report


Then you have the fact that gov. walker's bill has a section that gives him the authority to lease or sell the states power facilities to anyone he chooses without competition for any amount he chooses. Although this has been now limited to approval by the state legislature we are talking about the same state representatives that have basically rubberstamped everything that he wanted to do. BTW what type of companies do the koch brothers own?? Energy companies for one, so walker is trying to pass legislation that would benefit people who gave him money. Is that enough for you?

BTW care to explain why you edited my post and deleted the second half?? What are you afraid of??

P.S. according to the author of this thread and thereisnospoon everything in the links that I cited must be taken as fact until it is proven to be incorrect. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Well do you have an answer or are you just blowing smoke as you try to make arguments against american workers that you can't support??

If you fired every government employee in Wisconsin, cut pay and benefits by 25% across the board, it would take about 5 minutes to fill the jobs, with thousands of applicants wishing they had been selected.

Maybe I should have been more specific and asked you if you had a REAL answer instead of the one that you just made up. So, care to prove that claim??

Why is it that you have a different standard of proof for yourself than you do those who dare to disagree with you??

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uh did you provide proof of your claims?? Nope so where do you get off demanding them from me when you fail to substantiate your own arguments??

Which ones do you want evidence for?

BTW, Here is some of my evidence that they gave him money.

So?

That isn't the question.

Unions get money from government trough lurkers, use that money to elect democrats who in turn give taxpayer money to the trough lurkers, who give money in dues to the the union, who uses that money to elect democrats who in turn give taxpayer money to the trough lurkers, who give money in dues to the the union.....

Then you have the fact that gov. walker's bill has a section that gives him the authority to lease or sell the states power facilities to anyone he chooses without competition for any amount he chooses. Although this has been now limited to approval by the state legislature we are talking about the same state representatives that have basically rubberstamped everything that he wanted to do. BTW what type of companies do the koch brothers own?? Energy companies for one, so walker is trying to pass legislation that would benefit people who gave him money. Is that enough for you?

Uh no, it's the kind of idiotic conspiracy crap found on Democratic Underground or the other mindless hate sites.

BTW care to explain why you edited my post and deleted the second half?? What are you afraid of??

I respond to what I please, I didn't change any of your words.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Maybe I should have been more specific and asked you if you had a REAL answer instead of the one that you just made up. So, care to prove that claim??

I'd love to!

Start sending out the pink slips. We'll time it when the new hiring starts.

Deal?

 

[drsmith1072]

Uh did you provide proof of your claims?? Nope so where do you get off demanding them from me when you fail to substantiate your own arguments??

Which ones do you want evidence for?

How about any of your claims? You have made so few and yet failed to provide anything of substance for any of them. So get started.

BTW, Here is some of my evidence that they gave him money.

So?

That isn't the question.

Typical avoidance. Imagine that. I said a politician taking money from a contributor and then passing legislation that benefits his contributor was LIKE your argument not the same.

Unions get money from government trough lurkers, use that money to elect democrats who in turn give taxpayer money to the trough lurkers, who give money in dues to the the union, who uses that money to elect democrats who in turn give taxpayer money to the trough lurkers, who give money in dues to the the union.....

And along the same lines corporations give money to republican politicians which pass legislation which gives these corportate government trough lurkers money who use that money to elect republicans who in turn give taxpayer money to the corporate trough lurkers, who give money to the republican politicians, who use that money to get elected and who in turn give taxpayer money to the corporate trough lurkers, who give money to the republican politicians.....

LOL

Then you have the fact that gov. walker's bill has a section that gives him the authority to lease or sell the states power facilities to anyone he chooses without competition for any amount he chooses. Although this has been now limited to approval by the state legislature we are talking about the same state representatives that have basically rubberstamped everything that he wanted to do. BTW what type of companies do the koch brothers own?? Energy companies for one, so walker is trying to pass legislation that would benefit people who gave him money. Is that enough for you?

Uh no, it's the kind of idiotic conspiracy crap found on Democratic Underground or the other mindless hate sites.

According to other rightwingers on this thread unless you can prove it wrong then it must be considered fact. LOL

BTW care to explain why you edited my post and deleted the second half?? What are you afraid of??

I respond to what I please, I didn't change any of your words.

ah the typical avoidance excuses of the right wing troll. Imagine that. You demand that others prove their claims even as you refuse to prove your own. I am wondering how long it will take you to ask me to prove you wrong seeing as how you fail to prove your own arguments?? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Maybe I should have been more specific and asked you if you had a REAL answer instead of the one that you just made up. So, care to prove that claim??

I'd love to!

Start sending out the pink slips. We'll time it when the new hiring starts.

Deal?

IF you were an honest poster you would have just admitted that you can't provide a real answer and lack the ability to prove the claim that you made. However, it's become more than apparent that you are NOT an honest poster.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How about any of your claims?

So, you got nothing and are just flinging shit in hopes of distracting from this fact.

Pretty much what I figured.

Typical avoidance. Imagine that. I said a politician taking money from a contributor and then passing legislation that benefits his contributor was LIKE your argument not the same.

No such legislation was passed, nor even proposed. You brought up wild speculation from some leftist hate site as if it were pertinent.

And along the same lines corporations give money to republican politicians which pass legislation which gives these corportate government trough lurkers money

Oh?

You mean like this?

{According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.}

Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor - CNN

{Rep. Charlie Rangel of Harlem received $2,000 from GEPAC. He is not in electoral danger, but he is chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Henry Waxman of Hollywood also doesn't need GE's help getting elected, but the $1,000 from GEPAC might make Waxman, who's chairman of the Commerce Committee, more amenable to a GE-friendly climate bill or health care reform bill.

Of the six House members who have received more than $4,000 from GEPAC this cycle -- all Democrats -- only Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., faces a tough re-election next year, thanks to accusations that he has used his chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee to benefit donors and patrons. GE is a top defense contractor.}

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Leaked e-mail shows how GE puts the government to work for GE | Timothy P. Carney | Politics | Washington Examiner

{Yet in the appendix of his 1992 book, Still The Best Congress Money Can Buy, Philip Stern defined “conflict-of-interest’ receipts as “contributions given to, and accepted by, that lawmaker from groups having a particular interest in the decision of the legislative committee on which that lawmaker sits (e.g….gifts by banks and other financial PACs to members of the House Banking Committee)…” Stern also indicated in this same book that the “conflict-of-interest” receipts accepted by Rep. Frank between 1985 and 1990 exceeded $149,000.}

Barney Frank's JP Morgan Chase Connection - Dollars & Sense Blog

Damn those crooked Republicans like Obama, Dodd and Frank....

You're not real good at this, you know?

 

[Uncensored2008]

IF you were an honest poster you would have just admitted that you can't provide a real answer.

I did provide a real answer, which nailed your skanky ass to the wall.

Problem is dr, you're really not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag.

 

[drsmith1072]

How about any of your claims?

So, you got nothing and are just flinging shit in hopes of distracting from this fact.

Pretty much what I figured.

What fact?? What am I distracting from that is a fact that has been substantiated?? Show something real instead of making baseless claims. I asked to to back up your claims and all you can do is spin and lie as you try to run away from your own arguments and claims.

Typical avoidance. Imagine that. I said a politician taking money from a contributor and then passing legislation that benefits his contributor was LIKE your argument not the same.

No such legislation was passed, nor even proposed. You brought up wild speculation from some leftist hate site as if it were pertinent.

really?? Do you even know what is in the bill that walker is trying to ram through?? Apparently not. Furthermore, it's funny how you don't apply your own standards to yourself. So can you prove anything that the sources I cited is untrue?? If not then according to you they must be considered fact until proven wrong. Thanks for showing that you are not only dishonest but a hypocritie as well. LOL

You're not real good at this, you know?

Says the one running from his own source because he knows he lacks the substance to support it and his claims that are based on it.

 

[drsmith1072]

IF you were an honest poster you would have just admitted that you can't provide a real answer.

I did provide a real answer, which nailed your skanky ass to the wall.

Problem is dr, you're really not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag.

really?? Care to explain how making a claim based on events that haven't even occurred yet is providing a real answer?? LOL

aww poor u2008 can't back up his arguments so he goes to the fall back of the rightwingers on this board of baselessly attacking those who dare question his unsubstantiated opinions. LOL