Scott Walker's crusade continues

[DaShi]

I like the new font. It makes your posts even more a headache to read. Way to raise the bar!

[Kidlicious]

[Dinner]

We get it. You hate the working class and you blame them for the circumstances under which they live. Anything else you want to add?

Alrighty. You are just acting brain damaged now and not coincidentally it coincides with you losing every argument you've made in this thread. Gee, I wonder why that could be?

[Felch]

Dinner, I haven't heard a peep from you about those three links I posted. They raised some startling questions about your claim that it's easy to get out of political activities. Address those issues, or kindly **** off.

[Felch]

Here are those links, so you don't have to fish around for them. They're biased, but so is everything else you read, so you shouldn't have any trouble with that.

By the way, in my fact checking, I couldn't find anything that said those articles were lying. So if you could provide some evidence that the following facts are untrue that would be helpful:

http://thinkingrightblog.com/prop-32-most-important-ballot-initiative-in-california-ever/#.UMejuYM8B8E

Is it true that less than 1% of California's union voters opt out of making political contributions? If it is true, does it make you suspicious that the opt out procedure isn't as easy as you claim?

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/union-374014-vickie-political.html

Is Vicki Schwartz's story about being forced out of the union for opting out of political dues true? If you think she's lying, do you have any evidence?

http://teachersunionexposed.com/dues.cfm

Is Teachers Union Exposed's claim of significant drops in union political payments when opt in mechanics are introduced true? If it is true, does it make you wonder about the value union members think they get from political dues?

I don't really care if you answer these questions or not. But I want you to think about one thing. Is it possible that your sources of information are just as ludicrously biased as these, and is it possible that your absolutist attitude is a consequence of swallowing propaganda without question? Maybe the world isn't as simple as you think, and maybe the facts you're being fed are only half the answer, just like with these guys. Every lie is seeded with a little bit of truth.

[Dinner]

Prop 32 lost because it was partisan garbage. It was designed to attack the unions and prevent political donations from unions but had giant loopholes which would have allowed 80%-90% of the corporate campaign donations. Trying to pimp for a failed prop which rightly got laughed at by all fair minded people won't get you any where.

[Felch]

I don't care if it lost. California voters shot down gay marriage as well, that doesn't mean that it's wrong.

[Dinner]

Gay marriage will be back shortly. Prop 8 won by a very slim margin and mostly due to a blitz from out of state money. Heck, I'm wondering what impact the pending SCotUS ruling will have too.

[Felch]

But you understand that the fact a ballot question lost in California doesn't convince me of ****, right? Prop 19 convinced me that California voters are not my moral compass.

[Felch]

Anyways, I'm not really interested in the merits of Prop 32. I'm much more interested in you answering this question.

Is it possible that your sources of information are just as ludicrously biased as these, and is it possible that your absolutist attitude is a consequence of swallowing propaganda without question?

[Hauldren Collider]

It's not just possible, it's certain.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, and everywhere else in America we cater to 23% minority votes. Let's amend the Constitution to require at least a 78% majority from Congress. There's probably close to 23% of the population that thinks 9/11 and the moon landings are fake. They're also not that motivated to leave if they don't change jobs. I've had employers I didn't like. I looked for a different job. Find anything in the political arena with 77% support. Plus your focus on government worker unions belies your whole "forced to join" argument. Unless they live under a rock, pretty much anyone anywhere near the job market knows that the vast majority of government jobs are union jobs. If you know that going in, and you apply anyway, you're pretty obviously not forced. There's this thing called "the private sector" for the rest of us. You'd have a bit of an argument (but not much if there were agency fee only provisions) if a non-union shop unionized and there were workers there who didn't want to be in the union. That's pretty rare nowadays.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Gay marriage will be back shortly. Prop 8 won by a very slim margin and mostly due to a blitz from out of state money. Heck, I'm wondering what impact the pending SCotUS ruling will have too.

I'll give 3:1 odds that SCOTUS will rule on the standing issues alone (since they've directed the parties to brief and be prepared to argue that point) and not on the substantive issues. That was the Rehnquist way, it'll be interesting to see if CJ Roberts wants to start taking an expansive approach to constitutional issues. The cert grant rates and opinions so far don't indicate any major shift from the limited case selection and narrow approach favored by the Rehnquist court. Deciding on standing also lets the court maintain the general practice of staying away from "political" cases.

[Felch]

Public service unions came about because of a system of shakedowns starting with political hack appointees and working its way down in a manner that put the pre-reformation Catholic church to shame. Just like in a lot of third world countries today - you bought a government job, then pay a shakedown every paycheck to maintain it. That abuse is the atmosphere that spawned unions in the public sector, just as different abuses spawned labor unions in the private sector.

Do you have a source for this claim yet? Maybe just a link or something, explaining how public sector unions were a post WWII response to patronage abuses that ended in the 1870s?

[Dinner]

So... Because MJ wasn't legalized officially (just made pseudo legal as "medicine") the state has no moral compass? Jesus, we're still better off than 24 or 25 states on the issue.