great day for wisconsin

#26
#26
The backlash on this is way out of proportion to what it really means. Yet again, the right is in position for a small victory, and some yahoo decides to make it his big victory...
only to have it blow up in his face... What a Charlie Foxtrot this is going to be.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
There have been 8 recall petitions started. At least 3 of them have a high likelihood of passing.
 
#28
#28
NEOCON said:
. Then TN
Click to expand...

retard_keyboard.gif
 
#31
#31
VOLatile said:
Not Walker, but 8 Representatives. Walker's recall petition will start circulating on 1/1/2012.
Click to expand...

Even if the recall petitions accrue 25% of the district populations, the incumbent still has to lose in the election. I just do not see that happening.

As for Walker's, one year is a long time in politics. Most people will have moved on a year from now.
 
#32
#32
therealUT said:
Even if the recall petitions accrue 25% of the district populations, the incumbent still has to lose in the election. I just do not see that happening.

As for Walker's, one year is a long time in politics. Most people will have moved on a year from now.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the recall attempt is successful or not, I have a feeling this one just might defy the norms and stick for a while. This is a direct hit not a shot across the bow. I look for it to get nasty. Check that, nastier.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#33
#33
therealUT said:
Even if the recall petitions accrue 25% of the district populations, the incumbent still has to lose in the election. I just do not see that happening.

As for Walker's, one year is a long time in politics. Most people will have moved on a year from now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. The important thing right now is that the process has started.

The case for Walker could change dramatically in a year.

It's kind of funny that collective bargaining is recognized through human rights organizations, specifically Article 23 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not that that really means anything here in America, though.
 
#34
#34
I'm just not understanding this issue. Political rhetoric aside: why do the public employees of Wisconsin need collective bargaining rights? This isn't a corporation or industry. It's the public sector.
 
#35
#35
I don't see how pulling the collective bargaining portion out and voting on it now was neccessary. They had the votes to pass it as is. The longer the dems hid and avoided voting the worse it would look for the dems.

All this is going to do is makes the wisconsin republicans look bad in the long run.

Although I'm absolutely certain we'll have plenty of hypocritical entertainment coming out of this. Dems whining that the repubs changed the rules when both parties have played shenanigans for years.
 
#36
#36
therealUT said:
then the Democrats simply screwed themselves by fleeing the state.
Click to expand...

This is what I find funny. The democrats used dirty tactics to prevent a vote. So the republicans used dirty tactics to vote on it anyway.

And yet now all we'll hear about is how the republicans somehow cheated. Stupid move imo.
 
#37
#37
Just to kick the beehive a bit, why exclude policemen and firemen from the legislation? Are they acknowledging that all public unions aren't bad? Or is it window dressing? Honest question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#38
#38
VOLatile said:
Walker won't win another election and WI will go to the Dems in 2012. Book it. This was never a budget issue, and it was shown today because they split the bill to bust the unions.
Click to expand...

you obviously have not clue on how much money was being wasted due to the union thugs. there is no place for public sector unions. they work for the taxpayers.

what you don't understand is that there is a huge silent majority that will vote for walker again. of course the unions thugs will do their best to rig the votes for next year.

the devil is in the details when it comes to those bargaining contracts, something you libs fail to look at.
 
#40
#40
IPorange said:
I'm just not understanding this issue. Political rhetoric aside: why do the public employees of Wisconsin need collective bargaining rights? This isn't a corporation or industry. It's the public sector.
Click to expand...

they need barganing right to give more unions money so the unions bosses can get rich and give millions of taxpayer money to dem politicians.

that's the whole point, public sector unions shouldn't get those 'right' the fed gov doensn't have them, why should the states.
 
#41
#41
joevol320 said:
you obviously have not clue on how much money was being wasted due to the union thugs. there is no place for public sector unions. they work for the taxpayers.

what you don't understand is that there is a huge silent majority that will vote for walker again. of course the unions thugs will do their best to rig the votes for next year.

the devil is in the details when it comes to those bargaining contracts, something you libs fail to look at.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree because when you look at it the % of the Unions compared to the majority is well, very small.
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
seriously? he's the governor. the debate is within the legislature.

can't believe this is viewed as okay. were you fine with R's being the "party of no" in the fed govt? at least they fulfilled their role and voted.

were you okay with Reid and Pelosi's maneuvering to enact legislation via tricks and loopholes rather than negotiation?

it's a dirty business - I don't condone it but running away is the height of irresponsibility in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
#44
#44
JayVols said:
Just to kick the beehive a bit, why exclude policemen and firemen from the legislation? Are they acknowledging that all public unions aren't bad? Or is it window dressing? Honest question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

not including police and fire is absurd. they are undoubtably a very large % of the budget.
 
#45
#45
droski said:
not including police and fire is absurd. they are undoubtably a very large % of the budget.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I wanted a different perspective. If public unions are all bad and vital to addressing budgetary concerns, excluding these groups casts a shadow on the stated goal of the legislation as I see it. My question wasn't intended to be a trap. It just seems that this opens the door for those claiming union busting or a true lack of strength of conviction perhaps.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#46
#46
VOLatile said:
It's kind of funny that collective bargaining is recognized through human rights organizations, specifically Article 23 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not that that really means anything here in America, though.
Click to expand...

I still haven't seen anyone explain why they are so bent about this but aren't railing that Fed employees DON'T have collective bargaining rights.

The wisconsin public unions will STILL have CB rights and considerably more so than fed unions.

Likewise, why not recall the cowards that left the state? That is a true dereliction of duty.

It's about R vs D in the end.
 
#47
#47
IPorange said:
I'm just not understanding this issue. Political rhetoric aside: why do the public employees of Wisconsin need collective bargaining rights? This isn't a corporation or industry. It's the public sector.
Click to expand...


To take it a step further. Public employees must be in the union. As a Wisc dem put it, if you don't want to pay dues then get another job (very Rep sounding of him).

The salaries of these employees are paid by the tax payer. Part of that salary is automatically deducted from the check as union dues. Basically, tax payers are paying the union dues.

The union then distributes that money back to politicians that will favor unions and in the end extract more money from tax payers in the form of salary, benefits and dues which will continue the cycle.

In the end, the tax payers are the ones paying the union dues.
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
To take it a step further. Public employees must be in the union. As a Wisc dem put it, if you don't want to pay dues then get another job (very Rep sounding of him).

The salaries of these employees are paid by the tax payer. Part of that salary is automatically deducted from the check as union dues. Basically, tax payers are paying the union dues.

The union then distributes that money back to politicians that will favor unions and in the end extract more money from tax payers in the form of salary, benefits and dues which will continue the cycle.

In the end, the tax payers are the ones paying the union dues.
Click to expand...



The same thing happens in awarding defense contracts and oil leases, etc. Don't make it sound as if the unions are the only mechanism for politicians to route public money back to themselves.
 
#49
#49
JayVols said:
Thanks. I wanted a different perspective. If public unions are all bad and vital to addressing budgetary concerns, excluding these groups casts a shadow on the stated goal of the legislation as I see it. My question wasn't intended to be a trap. It just seems that this opens the door for those claiming union busting or a true lack of strength of conviction perhaps.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

completely agree. it's taking the easy way out since no one wants to admit that maybe our police and fire ARE overpaid since they save our lives. they knew it wouldn't look good politically, but if they were really serious about cutting spending those groups (and the prison guards) would be at the top of the list to go after.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
The same thing happens in awarding defense contracts and oil leases, etc. Don't make it sound as if the unions are the only mechanism for politicians to route public money back to themselves.
Click to expand...

even if true i'm not sure i'm seeing the relavance?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top