Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep. Speaking of dumb fucks...Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.But there is a Constitutional right to free speech. As Big Fitz said (that I was referring to) "Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.
THAT is a violation of free speech you dumb FUCKS.
.
Could you explain that to me?
Leftists don't want equality under the law.Yep. Speaking of dumb fucks...Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.But there is a Constitutional right to free speech. As Big Fitz said (that I was referring to) "Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.
THAT is a violation of free speech you dumb FUCKS.
.
Could you explain that to me?
If corperations can't have free speech, neither should the faux personage of a union.
Oh damn! Equality under the law! How dare we?
Trajan and daveman won't answer it because they can't.
If the unions have to get 51% of the membership every year to vote for re-certification then Wisconsin should have to get 51% of the registered voters every year to re-affirm this law.
That is patently absurd! What other law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor do you want the registered voters to re-affirm. All of them? Just some of them? We elect our representatives to do that.
Then why should the state of Wisconsin be telling the unions they have to do it?
After all? Unions are corporations as well. Their wares are Labour and Money Laundering for the Statist Democrats. Big Political Business.Yep. Speaking of dumb fucks...Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.But there is a Constitutional right to free speech. As Big Fitz said (that I was referring to) "Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.
THAT is a violation of free speech you dumb FUCKS.
.
Could you explain that to me?
If corperations can't have free speech, neither should the faux personage of a union.
Oh damn! Equality under the law! How dare we?
And before he whines too heavily, he needs to recall that money = free speech according to the supreme court.
Defining characteristic of all leftists. Everyone gets the same size of slice of cake regardless of merit. Mommy rules for the children applied to society.Leftists don't want equality under the law.Yep. Speaking of dumb fucks...Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.
Could you explain that to me?
If corperations can't have free speech, neither should the faux personage of a union.
Oh damn! Equality under the law! How dare we?
Do you, Goosey?
That is patently absurd! What other law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor do you want the registered voters to re-affirm. All of them? Just some of them? We elect our representatives to do that.
Then why should the state of Wisconsin be telling the unions they have to do it?
see folks this is how far disconnected this all is, it never occurs to ny carb and others here it seems that ultimately though public sector employees uses the unions as its middle man, the STATE is their employer and the STATE does at the end of the day have the ultimate power over the union MEMBERS as ITS employer. IF not then the wheoile thing makes exactly no sense as their would be no ULTIMATE employer...and we both know there is, but its better if we pretend there isn't, the state should just be an ATM forgoing any control whatsoever.
When they get what they want, the relationship as is, is fine, when they don't ooops, Houston there's a problem.
You cannot have it both ways. They pay you, they, THEY employ you, If you don't recognize the state as your ultimate employer and in such has at some point the ability to change or control your empployment and the union has got to stand aside, then you have kidded yourself and rocketed yourself into never never land......and this is one of those times.
Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.But there is a Constitutional right to free speech. As Big Fitz said (that I was referring to) "Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.
THAT is a violation of free speech you dumb FUCKS.
.
Could you explain that to me?
Apparently, they don't like mob rule when they aren't the winning mob.Yes, childish foot-stamping is such a compelling argument.Trajan and daveman won't answer it because they can't.
If the unions have to get 51% of the membership every year to vote for re-certification then Wisconsin should have to get 51% of the registered voters every year to re-affirm this law.
Oh please. Essentially that is nationalization of private business."It's over for these high wages and and greedy unions. The wages and benefits are no longer sustainable. "
This is true especially when the corporations get big breaks. There is no such thing as "Fair Share." The greedy corporations should be TRIPLE TAXED if they do not produce jobs that pay very well with benefits. Lets NOT call a job that pays less than $15 per hour a job.
Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.But there is a Constitutional right to free speech. As Big Fitz said (that I was referring to) "Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.
THAT is a violation of free speech you dumb FUCKS.
.
Could you explain that to me?
Do corporations allow shareholders to opt out of the cost of political activity?
Defining characteristic of all leftists. Everyone gets the same size of slice of cake regardless of merit. Mommy rules for the children applied to society.Leftists don't want equality under the law.Yep. Speaking of dumb fucks...
If corperations can't have free speech, neither should the faux personage of a union.
Oh damn! Equality under the law! How dare we?
Do you, Goosey?
Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.But there is a Constitutional right to free speech. As Big Fitz said (that I was referring to) "Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.
THAT is a violation of free speech you dumb FUCKS.
.
Could you explain that to me?
Do corporations allow shareholders to opt out of the cost of political activity?
Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.
Could you explain that to me?
Do corporations allow shareholders to opt out of the cost of political activity?
Sure do. They can sell their shares. Idiot.
Essential government services. Protect and serve.Question still stands. I have heard nobody not even those who can do nothing but name call answer the question why were the police and firefighters not included in the union killing bill?
Do corporations allow shareholders to opt out of the cost of political activity?
Sure do. They can sell their shares. Idiot.
I don't think he's smart enough to understand this...
He still has Enron shares....
I'm just curious why he thinks he's intelligent. There's certainly no evidence to support that conclusion.
He sold Enron at $1 and put all his money in Fannie Mae shares.....Do corporations allow shareholders to opt out of the cost of political activity?
Sure do. They can sell their shares. Idiot.
I don't think he's smart enough to understand this...
He still has Enron shares....
Sure do. They can sell their shares. Idiot.
I don't think he's smart enough to understand this...
He still has Enron shares....
You can sell your shares. Hell, if the company is wasting too much money, you can sell shares short.Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.But there is a Constitutional right to free speech. As Big Fitz said (that I was referring to) "Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.
THAT is a violation of free speech you dumb FUCKS.
.
Could you explain that to me?
Do corporations allow shareholders to opt out of the cost of political activity?
He sold Enron at $1 and put all his money in Fannie Mae shares.....Sure do. They can sell their shares. Idiot.
I don't think he's smart enough to understand this...
He still has Enron shares....
She lied.I don't think he's smart enough to understand this...
He still has Enron shares....
He thinks that because Mrs. Johnson told him that he was smart in the 2nd grade it somehow carries through to today...
