- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I don't think that is the term for it, but you do support thingsagainst your own interests.
Attack? No. I don't think I've ever done that. I just support workers and vote for things that are in their interests and against things that are not.
Is it against my interest to want to see a healthy economy? Is it against my interest to want to see an employer that is not under the thumb of regulation to the point of closing down my income source? Is it against my interest to want to have a government that doesn't constantly want to control my life? I think not.
Unions are not the only people that are pinched by the economy there boo. Let me tell ya, If you truly were in support of the working middle class, of which unions only make up less than 10% of you'd be championing things that won't end up costing us more in a daily basis, ie: health care, energy, food....etc.
but those like you will always say the bumper sticker, with no substance and expect it to close down the debate, instead it only makes me wonder if there are any truly independent, critical thinkers at all among the liberal ranks.
j-mac
j, everything we know you supported contributed to an unhealthy economy. The division growing between rich and poor, and the shrinking middle class is caused by policy that favors business and the wealthy. So, you have not voted in your interests. What was that book? What's the matter with Kansas? It explores this mindset and result reasonably well.
Also, regulations are another issue. But in fact, the question should be is any particular regulatin necessary and proper. If the reason for it is valid, then the regulation is valid. each has to be handled individually, and not some overreaching comment that we have too many.
No where did I say union member were the only people pinched. So, that strawman can be put to bed.
And I do champion health care, for example. Take it out of the work place, thus eliminating not only their premimum that they see, but the hidden cost the employer puts out that too few working people think about, thus allowing business to better compete with the rest of the world where citizens have UHC. Tax dollrs to support such a system would not come close to what is being put out presently by employers and employees, and all for an expensive and ineffective system that has problematic access issues.
Your last paragrapgh makes no sense. Few merely repeat mindless partisan nonsense as often as you do. You've divided the world in to two polar opposite sides, liberals and real Americans. This prevents you too often from actually looking at issues. You can't get beyond the "liberal" you see everywhere.
I wouldn't say that at all. "Everything"? that is a pretty absolute statement I think meant more to divide, and promote that only one sides thinking on the issue is the only correct path. Maybe instead of putting forth such absolutes would go a long way to actually solving these problems, and not just offering such as lip service to the notion but actually seeing some real compromise from this administration.
I heard somewhere that there were some 66,000 pages of new regulation this year alone designed to end run congressional authority in matters that directly effect job sectors that were not supportive of current administration goals, and initiatives. Is this the 'new way' for the progressive movement? Can't get popular support in the legal, constitutional way so just end run the system anyway?
Ok, admittedly I did extrapolate a little on your use of "worker" language, but the sentiment remains that nothing being proposed at least in this current day and age under this administration leads observation to conclude that anything other than core constituencies like Unions are being discussed when these meme's are most likely speaking to that subset.
One size fits all fixes are usually doomed to failure.
Nonsense, I think that liberals are real Americans as well, just wrong.
j-mac
you're right, you may have an exception here and there, but on the whole, you do in fact vote against your interests.
The truth is just something we've heard?
Well, if such comes about, the point is, each regulation has to be evaluated on whether it is needed or not. I doubt very seriously all would be needed, but until we look, we can't make a blanket statement. We have to actually look.
The rest of what you say is more partisan nonsense.
Only if you look at it through a skewed lens. When you feed yourself partisan nonsense, you see such everywhere, and just know it. A lot harder to actually prove such assertions.
Not sure what you're saying or what you think you're addressing, but no where do I suggest a one size fits all answer. I've often spoke on this subject and explained that it would have to be two teired, and that those who can afford more can get more. i think you're still debating your misperceptions and not me.
Well, that's a start. As I'm in no mood to look up old posts of yours. I'll accept that.
Many or most right wing non-union types have a disdain for the 'working people'... because they are a) anti-union, and b) pro-rich.that's a good one Joe...I a true working class truck driver, non union, have disdain for 'working people'.....heh, heh....What a joke....Get back on topic will you?
Even the union involved has fairly well denounced the loop hole involved in this issue. Any particular reason that you didn't read the link in your own OP? :shock:Do you denounce what the two union hacks did [...]
A spokesman for the Illinois Federation of Teachers emphasized that the lobbyists' actions were legal and that they made "individual decisions." Even so, union President Dan Montgomery said the deal Preckwinkle and Piccioli landed "should never be allowed again."
Illinois pension system: 2 teachers union lobbyists used loophole for fat pensions - Chicago Tribune
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ay-qualify-hefty-pensions.html#post1059900018
[...] and how much of that graft do you think exists in unions today?
graft
noun
1. the acquisition of money, gain, or advantage by dishonest, unfair, or illegal means, especially through the abuse of one's position or influence in politics, business, etc.
graft. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. Graft | Define Graft at Dictionary.com (accessed: November 01, 2011).
Well considering that an entire conversation was going on and you focused on a part of that which I am trying to steer back to the original topic, no strawman exists, and reading comprehension is in order on your part, but I think that the real highlight here is in your use of the strawman accusation, one has to wonder if you are yourself a product of the public schools systems, and that would be strong guess considering your lack of understanding of what exactly a strawman argument is. [...]
If you subscribe to the Tea Party/GOP extremist agenda (Obama must be made to fail), then yes, absolutely.Is it against my interest to want to see a healthy economy? [...]
If you subscribe to the Tea Party/GOP extremist agenda (Obama must be made to fail), then yes, absolutely.Is it against my interest to want to see a healthy economy? [...]
uh geeze! You are exhausting Joe. Look, you and I will probably never fully agree on much, but I find it amusing for a time to banter back and forth with you, however when you start just dismissing everything you don't want to debate by simply calling it partisan, then I think we are done here.
Good day.
j-mac
J, I only call the partisan partisan. It is laziness to try and fight stereotypes and misinformation, passing of fixed ideaology as thought or issues. I'll discuss any ISSUE you have. But I expect you to debate me and not the misguided stereotype in your head.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?