Collective bargaining "rights"??

[rightwinger]

It wasn't that long ago, remember when libs were outraged at Tea Party activists? Remember how the left was shocked, I say shocked that little old ladies and grey haired conservative men would actually engage in the political process? There were cries of anarchy and treason on the left. Now we have municipal workers breaking the law with sick-outs and trying to intimidate the poor Wisconsin governor and the left thinks it's another day in the park. Cowardly democrat state senators probably think they are entitled to a pay check while they sit in a bar in Illinois. What a bunch.

Damned teachers picking on that poor Governor. Than God the Tea Party is there to teach them about peaceful protest

 

[old navy]

I wonder why the teachers are not protesting today. Maybe because it is Sunday and they didn't have to call in sick. Or maybe it's because of the snow and cold. At least this morning there were only a few people outside the capitol.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I know there are already 13 Wisconsin threads on the first page of Politics already....but this one is really, really good

Protests start for 6th day at Wisconsin Capitol - USATODAY.com

protesting wisconsins....? wisconsonians....? wisconsinites....? wtf...

CHEESEHEADS

...make that swiss cheese...

 

[Ragnar]

When you want "Not just another Wisconsin Tread" it's hard to top the insightful analysis of USA TODAY.

 

[shintao]

It wasn't that long ago, remember when libs were outraged at Tea Party activists? Remember how the left was shocked, I say shocked that little old ladies and grey haired conservative men would actually engage in the political process? There were cries of anarchy and treason on the left. Now we have municipal workers breaking the law with sick-outs and trying to intimidate the poor Wisconsin governor and the left thinks it's another day in the park. Cowardly democrat state senators probably think they are entitled to a pay check while they sit in a bar in Illinois. What a bunch.

Would you care to show me where the workers are breaking any laws?

 

[bucs90]

I know there are already 13 Wisconsin threads on the first page of Politics already....but this one is really, really good

Protests start for 6th day at Wisconsin Capitol - USATODAY.com

So where do you think this ends? This will basically be the precedent for the rest of the country as far as momentum goes.

I just don't see how in this economy governments can keep raising taxes, keep overspending.

We just can't do it anymore. If our economy never collapsed, and we kept growing 1,000X faster than the rest of the world, we could've kept doing it.

But we aren't. Reality hit us all.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why was that guy from Michigan protesting in Wisconsin? Are they busing them in?

 

[bucs90]

It wasn't that long ago, remember when libs were outraged at Tea Party activists? Remember how the left was shocked, I say shocked that little old ladies and grey haired conservative men would actually engage in the political process? There were cries of anarchy and treason on the left. Now we have municipal workers breaking the law with sick-outs and trying to intimidate the poor Wisconsin governor and the left thinks it's another day in the park. Cowardly democrat state senators probably think they are entitled to a pay check while they sit in a bar in Illinois. What a bunch.

Would you care to show me where the workers are breaking any laws?

Easy.

It's called "Falsifying a Government Document".

A teacher's sick leave slip is a government document. If they lied on it, it's thus falsifying a government document.

It appears 25,000 teachers did just that.

And yes, it is illegal. No one would ever prosecute it. It'd be absurd to charge 25,000 teachers with that, just stupid. But, fact is, it is technically illegal.

 

[bucs90]

It wasn't that long ago, remember when libs were outraged at Tea Party activists? Remember how the left was shocked, I say shocked that little old ladies and grey haired conservative men would actually engage in the political process? There were cries of anarchy and treason on the left. Now we have municipal workers breaking the law with sick-outs and trying to intimidate the poor Wisconsin governor and the left thinks it's another day in the park. Cowardly democrat state senators probably think they are entitled to a pay check while they sit in a bar in Illinois. What a bunch.

Damned teachers picking on that poor Governor. Than God the Tea Party is there to teach them about peaceful protest

Seeing the violent tendencies of left wing protests, especially SEIU, I don't blame anyone for practicing their 2nd Amendment right to self defense.

 

[Dr.House]

I liked it when the Tea Party showed up with signs that said "We were at work yesterday, where the hell were you." Go Tea Party..

At least they got the spelling right......


They can thank those teachers

Unlike the OP...

How ironic....

 

[georgephillip]

I know there are already 13 Wisconsin threads on the first page of Politics already....but this one is really, really good

Protests start for 6th day at Wisconsin Capitol - USATODAY.com

So where do you think this ends? This will basically be the precedent for the rest of the country as far as momentum goes.

I just don't see how in this economy governments can keep raising taxes, keep overspending.

We just can't do it anymore. If our economy never collapsed, and we kept growing 1,000X faster than the rest of the world, we could've kept doing it.

But we aren't. Reality hit us all.

Wall Street hit us.

When do we hit back?

 

[frazzledgear]

Again, you are fundamentally wrong about the purpose of the Constitution. It is not an express list of rights granted the individual (or the collective). It is a clear list of the limited rights and restrictions of government.

There is no line in the constitution that guarantees you the right to walk on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean it's illegal to walk on the sidewalk until the government grants you the right - it means that it's legal unless and until the government restricts access to the sidewalk.

You are wrong. The constitution gives INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! Read it and learn.

You fail civics 101

OMG! NONE of you understand it. The Constitution doesn't GIVE anything! The Constitution is the contract WE THE PEOPLE have made with our government. The rights listed are ones WE THE PEOPLE have claimed for ourselves and telling government it may not infringe upon these SPECIFIC RIGHTS. In spite of activist judges, there are no implied "rights" in the Constitution. And in spite of liberals like Obama intent on the total bastardization of the Constitution -it is NOT a list of "negative" powers for government that unless government is specifically banned from certain actions, it can do whatever the fuck it wants! Democrats like Obama and Pelosi ABSOLUTELY believe this -which is why Pelosi gave a derisive sneering laugh when asked where the Constitutional grounds for government to order everyone to buy health insurance! To her it was a stupid question because in her mind GOVERNEMENT is our master and we must all do it she as part of the ruling elite ORDERS us to do. But our Constitution is a list of positive powers we the people GRANT to government. You know when the founders put in the sentence about whatever power was NOT specifically given to federal government belongs to either state government or the PEOPLE -they believed they were making a list of the specific powers we the people GRANTED to government and not creating a government that can do whatever the fuck it wants!

Our rights are not "given" to us by government because rights are not "given" by anyone or anything! They are CLAIMED. It is why there is actually no such thing as "animal rights" -rights must be claimed by those who intend to exercise them. What is being called "animal rights" are in reality just rules people want to make about how animals should be treated. But if we fail to do so it won't be animals that hold us accountable -but other people. So animals neither claim any rights nor hold us accountable for the failure to uphold them -so enough of claiming there is anything called "animal rights" when there is no such thing. We can make LAWS about how to treat animals -but that doesn't make them "rights". I can't believe they no longer educate people about what are RIGHTS and what are PRIVILEGES or the intent behind the Constitution itself. The Declaration of Independence reiterates the RIGHT of people to overthrow their own government and replace it with another one when government fails to do the bidding of the people. Government is our SERVANT -NEVER our master! And when it stops doing what we tell it to -then government has broken our contract and no longer has legitimate grounds to exist at all.

Rights are CLAIMED -they are things we the people have said we have that NO MAN has the right to tamper with -PERIOD. Privileges are granted by a governing authority. Anyone who thinks rights are granted by government is just a government slave. Whatever MAN can give you -he can turn around and claim the identical authority to take them away. But rights are not GRANTED -they are claimed and what we claim for ourselves NO ONE has the right to take away. Our contract says these rights were given to us by a higher authority than man -which means NO MAN has the right to deprive us of what a higher authority has given us. I think one of the reasons the left works SO hard to strip the public square of any mention of God is because they need to first remove God from the equation as the source of our rights -in order to insist it is MAN who is the source of our "rights" -which then opens the door to man altering, modifying and depriving us of any or all of them. The first one the left would strip is the 2nd Amendment and NOT for the "safety" of the people. History and events taking place today have repeatedly proven that an unarmed population are anything but safe.

There is no such thing as a "right" to collective bargaining and please -stop with this dangerous and asinine notion that there is such a thing as "group rights" at all. NO SUCH RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY and it would be disastrous to suddenly forfeit individual rights for "group rights". If all individuals have identical rights then every member of all groups also have identical rights -no need for special treatment for some people based on membership in some group. "Group rights" are an attempt by the left to GRAB more for particular groups than others have. And they do so by TAKING some away from everyone else. The end result is that people no longer have identical rights -some have more power over the rest of us, lay claim to be able to force YOU to do what they want, lay claim to restrict YOUR rights so theirs is greater. There is a reason the left loves the idea of claiming "group rights" -they know it alters the balance of power to them even when they are in the minority. Never forget -to be a liberal means favoring the totalitarian state where the state has the greatest control of the individual. It is why it is always liberals yammering about wanting laws to force people to do all sorts of things they don't want -right down to what you can EAT without being punished for it. THEY believe you have no real right to even control your own life and destiny because THEY think they can run your own life better -and should. They promote promiscuous sex and drug use as a way of distracting everyone from the fact the left believes they are little more than stupid cows to be manipulated. Keep the population fucking and drugged up and they are less likely to notice much else. Other leftists in other countries use deliberate famines to get the same result. Starving people don't have the energy to revolt -not when their greatest concern is finding their next meal.

Our nation was founded on the principle of INDIVIDUALISM and the protection of the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. The Constitution does NOT offer any protection for any kind of "group rights" whatsoever which would mean denying all people are created equal in the eyes of the law after all because some people would have GREATER "rights" based on membership in some club that don't exist to non-members! There is no such thing as a "right" to collective bargaining and I don't give a shit what any fucking activist judge may say about. NO SUCH RIGHT in our Constitution. There is only the false and phony bleating by the left that we must all pretend it is a "right". Bullshit. If anything I have the greater right to work without being forced to join a fucking union. And more and more states are realizing that and restricting the ability of unions to lock out non-union individuals from getting a job.

And for the person yammering about the US not supporting Hamas after it "won" election. Are you for real? You really are SO stupid as to believe just because an exercise is called an "election" that somehow validates the results? In spite of the fact that election was anything BUT democratic and honest? You probably think the "elections" they have in Iran are real too, huh. My God some people really are nothing but useful IDIOTS. In case you didn't know this and I have a hard time believing you don't - Hamas stole that "election" at gunpoint, targeted murders and threats of murder. Oh yeah, let's all get behind a mass murdering terrorist organization that wants to pretend using terrorist tactics to grab political power somehow magically endowed them with the exact same legitimacy as our own government! But again -I bet you are a proud product of our public school system.

The sooner people really grasp reality here that government is the INVENTION OF MAN, the better for us all. We created it -and we created it to serve US, to benefit US -we gave our CONSENT to be governed but on OUR terms and those terms dictate how we must be governed for our government to retain its legitimacy with WE THE PEOPLE. When it no longer does that -it has no legitimate grounds for its existence because it has violated our contract and then government no longer has the consent of those being governed. Liberals have deluded themselves -in spite of history's important lessons -that man's invention is actually superior to man himself, can even run the individual's life better than he can - and therefore we all exist to serve it. Communists and socialists absolutely believe this -that the individual is simply a replaceable cog in the wheel. But our founders asserted for the first time in history that the INDIVIDUAL has value in and of himself and owns his own life -not government. Government must acknowledge and respect that at all times -or risk being dissolved or overthrown. It is what was so revolutionary about their thinking! The founders were NOT social revolutionaries trying to remake society or trying to redefine issues of morality -they had no problem with existing mores of the times. Their issue was with the proper role of GOVERNMENT in the life of man. Today it isn't considered revolutionary at all -but at the time it was an earth shaking experiment they created and they sweat bullets and debated for years and years to get it right for fear they were creating a monster and their own descendants might pay the price for it.

The founders intended to let the people of any particular generation makes its own laws about how it chooses to be governed -and leaving in place the ability of following generations to change those laws if they choose to be governed differently. One generation wants to outlaw alcohol for example -the next can change it back if they choose. Our system was set up to be flexible to the needs and demands of any given generation of self-determination with regard to the laws they AGREE to be governed. One generation may outlaw all sorts of activities and the next already had the means in place to turn around and change that law if they so desired. And another even later generation may decide the negative consequences outweigh the positive ones and make it illegal again. NO ONE generation forcing a future one to continue being governed by unwanted laws -THAT is what the founders envisioned and struggled to insure they were creating as much as possible! NOT a system where all future generations were forced to live under the rule of dead and past generations. But THAT is exactly what the left seeks by getting activist judges to find all sorts of constitutional "rights" that have been "hiding" unknown for more than 200 years.

One of my BIGGEST objections to liberal mentality is that they refuse to accept DEMOCRATIC rule in this country (which is why Democrat state senators in WI are trying to thwart democratic rule there too by hiding out and refusing to carry out their oaths of office -they should be impeached for it, every last one of them. Democrats are NO FANS of democracy and the rule of law and this is just one more example in a long, long list) and constantly seek ways to strip the rights of the majority and force unwanted laws down their throats anyway -something the founders did NOT envision or think desirable! Liberals are on a nonstop mission to strip this and all future generations of the right of self-determination and to make their own decisions about how they choose to be governed FOR ALL TIME -by going to courts and using activist judges to ram unwanted law down the throats of the majority when they can't get the majority to accept their unwanted laws. And typically by perverting and bastardizing our pure rights to do so -making it not a change in LAW that can be changed back in the future if desired, but an issue of "constitutional rights" that were previously unknown and just hiding for a couple of centuries. So that suddenly there is a "constitutional right" of pornographers to distribute pornographic images of very real looking, living children as long as they are computer generated -and no matter how REAL it looks. Really? No one in their right mind believes in a RIGHT to distribute images of real looking children being sodomized by adults and animals in order to make a profit feeding the immoral, revolting lust of disgusting sleezebags who will eventually be unsatisfied with just images anymore and will need to act on their lust. Liberals like to pretend there is no correlation but in fact study after study found a strong correlation between acting on one's lust to rape children and viewing images of it. But liberals got a court to insist there was a "constitutional right" to distribute very real looking images of children being violently attacked by men. Now all future generations are bound by that ruling too -and even if the overwhelming VAST majority of the people reject it (which they already do) the left has made sure it is nearly impossible for them to do a damn thing about it! Yeah the same people who bleat about all their "concern" for children didn't go to court to protect them -but to protect those who prey on them. Because it suits THEIR agenda and the right of the people of self determination be damned. I'd rather be dead than be a liberal and anyone who think the founders would be in support of using courts to not only ram unwanted law down the throats of the majority against their will but to tie the hands of all future generations and restricting their ability to decide how they agree to be governed -is either a stupid, ignorant idiot. Or a liar with an agenda.

 

[washamericom]

i'm glad at least that we all agree that the unions should just die out, since they are so unnecessary

 

[BenNatuf]

How is this any different from the GOP's policy of filibustering legislation during the first two years of the Obama white house?

How does a filibuster stop debate? A filibuster is a legislative tool the minority uses to CONTINUE debate, to engage in one is to explicitly use the legislative process, not avoid it.

If the majority is unwilling to negotiate with the minority, the minority is always free to take whatever legal steps are available to protect there rights. This is true regardless of who the minority is, and what they are standing for. No laws have been broken, so no foul.

Quite simply false, the law provides that the legislators can be COMPELLED to show up at work, laws are being broken.

If the Wisconsin GOP doesn't like it, they are free to either wait them out or try to negotiate.

Or have the police pick them up and escort them forcefully.

 

[BenNatuf]

A filibuster is a proper parliamentary procedure which requires that the elected representatives actually SHOW UP FOR WORK.

Damn Bode, this is getting to be a habbit, you're being entirely too reasonable.

 

[BenNatuf]

I like the WI DEMS "unique" filibusterer. I think it's hilarious that the best the cons on here can do is call them "pussies".

I also think it's laughable that the governor sent the state police after them.

What can they legally be arrested/detained for? Walker better hope make sure that doesn't happen as it is a clear abuse of power and a violation of the law.

They ARE pussies. Run away, brave Sir Robin. Bravely run away!

You only "like" this so-called variant on a "filibuster" because it's a bunch of pussy libbies doing the running. If the roles were reversed, and a bunch of GOP stalwarts were running away from the legislature to prevent the hypothetical liberal Democrat majority from cramming some other fucking mess down the throats of the people, you'd be expressing outwage! So would all the libbies.

You don't expect any kind of consistancy from the left do you?

 

[Greenbeard]

How does a filibuster stop debate? A filibuster is a legislative tool the minority uses to CONTINUE debate...

This is an extremely naive understanding of how the filibuster has been used, both historically and under the current dual-track system.

There is a difference been the textbooks and the real world.

 

[BenNatuf]

You are wrong. The constitution gives INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! Read it and learn.

You fail civics 101

Indeed. The Government doesn't Give Rights. Rights are inalienable and the Government exists to protect them.

Where did you get this inane idea? The government does not exist to protect rights, YOU are responsible for protecting your rights, the government is responsible for using its granted powers to govern.

 

[BenNatuf]

How does a filibuster stop debate? A filibuster is a legislative tool the minority uses to CONTINUE debate...

This is an extremely naive understanding of how the filibuster has been used, both historically and under the current dual-track system.

There is a difference been the textbooks and the real world.

false, a cloture vote ends debate, a vote against cloture is NOT a filibuster, it is a vote to continue debate. The majority has the OPTION of allowing the debate to continue unabated and FORCE a filibuster, the cowardice of the majority to do so when they have no intention of amending legislation to assuage the minorities concerns does not create a "filibuster". What there appears to be is a difference between actual reality and your version of it.

 

[Leweman]

What they are doing is completely unprofessional and nothing resembles proper legislative action by these so called public servants. Criminals as far as Im concerned. Not that most politicians arent. These guys are just blatant about it.