Koch Industries gave Walker $43,000 in direct contributions, then looked in the other pocket coughed up another $1 mill for the Republican Governors association. So what did the govs do you ask? Do what Repugs do best, run lying adds mostly against Walkers opponent, to the tune of $5 mill.
One of the first shots in the drive for a CORP AMERICA headed by the heirs to the principal founder of the John birch Society, David and Charles Koch.
Wake up America, or you will be a working for Koch Industries or one of its subsidiaries, such as the “Americans for Prosperity Foundation”. Who has tentacles in 32 states so far and growing. Whose main job is reversing environmental laws, eliminate unions.That is all.:2wave:
WALKER, SCOTT | Follow The Money
Private business employs people who pay taxes, pays taxes themselves, contributes to charities all without taxpayer money.
Show me some taxpayer’s money the unions dumped in the Wisconsin race. The Republican Governors Association, managed to run $5 million worth of ads in the state after Koch wrote a million-dollar check for them though. Then Koch Industries, through its PAC, donated $43,000 to Mr. Walker's campaign.
once someone has performed a service, and recieved payment for services rendered, the money they recieve is called WAGES...i know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but please try, and when they recieve those wages, these wages are THEIR OWN TO SPEND AS THEY SEE FIT....just because you may have been the one to pay them, THAT DOESNT GIVE YOU ANY RIGHT TO TELL THEM HOW THEY SHOULD SPEND IT....i know i've explained this to you befoe, and i can't believe you are going down this road again. it is quite simply NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT.You have been shown over and over how taxpayer money gets to the unions, you choose to ignore it.
once someone has performed a service, and recieved payment for services rendered, the money they recieve is called WAGES...i know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but please try, and when they recieve those wages, these wages are THEIR OWN TO SPEND AS THEY SEE FIT....just because you may have been the one to pay them, THAT DOESNT GIVE YOU ANY RIGHT TO TELL THEM HOW THEY SHOULD SPEND IT....i know i've explained this to you befoe, and i can't believe you are going down this road again. it is quite simply NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT.
and i know i've explained this to you before as well, when you apply for a job at a shop that is unionized, you are made aware of your obligations, to join the union within 30 days, and you are made aware of the amount of your union dues...it is at this point, if you have a problem with working in a union shop, that you can get up and say no thanks, and take your leave. you have a choice, it is when you hire in. and of course, union dues are well spent..duh...But it is ok for unions to tell them what they have to spend it on, right? Of course in your world union dues is money well spent.
and i know i've explained this to you before as well, when you apply for a job at a shop that is unionized, you are made aware of your obligations, to join the union within 30 days, and you are made aware of the amount of your union dues...it is at this point, if you have a problem with working in a union shop, that you can get up and say no thanks, and take your leave. you have a choice, it is when you hire in. and of course, union dues are well spent..duh...
So, how is Koch responsible for that other 4 million, exactly???
no, Randel claims that unions don't spend dues on political activities, that all those millions come from voluntary extra "donations" by union members. but he hasn't explained how, in light of that claim, the Walker bill is a "union busting" bill designed to weaken union political power. given that it only effected dues, and not voluntary donations, the Wisconsin bill couldn't possibly have had the effect he is claiming for it.
the only fool here is you conservative, and i will gladly take the demerits if a mod wishes to hit me with them...you speak of things that you have no knowledge of, and when challenged, everyone of your opponents suddenly become knuckledragging neanderthals who could benefit from your brand of 'wisdom'....sorry, i don't consider it to be 'forced membership', as i had a CHOICE when i applied with my company...the first thing i was asked when i had my interview was ' do you have any problem with working in a union shop?' no i didnt...the second question i was asked was asked/told was' you will have two hours of straight time pay per month deducted from your wages for union dues, do you have a problem with this? no, no i did not.Exactly, forced union membership to get a job is ok with you as well, right? If you want to work you have to join the union? Guess the 15 million unemployed Americans won't have a problem with a few more funded by the taxpayers, right?
As for union dues being well spent, interesting that less than 12% of the work force is now unionized but that 12% spends a lot of money especially on democrat candidates to influence elections. Of course you claim none of your union dues goes to political campaigns so apparently the money just comes from those union printing presses? Doubt you realize how foolish you sound.
and i know i've explained this to you before as well, when you apply for a job at a shop that is unionized, you are made aware of your obligations, to join the union within 30 days, and you are made aware of the amount of your union dues...it is at this point, if you have a problem with working in a union shop, that you can get up and say no thanks, and take your leave. you have a choice, it is when you hire in. and of course, union dues are well spent..duh...
cp, i've provided links in various threads, if you are seriously interested, look up my posts and find them...yes, walker is trying to weaken the unions, hoping that people won't pay their dues, thus weakening the union, hurting their ability to organize, and effectively negotiate contracts.. and this is only the first step, i'm sure he is looking for a way to include all unions, public and private sectors, in this plan.no, Randel claims that unions don't spend dues on political activities, that all those millions come from voluntary extra "donations" by union members. but he hasn't explained how, in light of that claim, the Walker bill is a "union busting" bill designed to weaken union political power. given that it only effected dues, and not voluntary donations, the Wisconsin bill couldn't possibly have had the effect he is claiming for it.
Doesn't look like Randel knows what is even in the bill but because randel was told that it was anti union that is all that is necessary to know because we all know unions always tell the truth. Wonder if randel would appreciate having a child indoctrinated like unions are doing in Wisconsin? Let's say the Christian Right was indoctrinating one of randel's children, my bet is randel would go ballistic.
seriously? andrew klavan?:lamo just move on now if this is all you have got
thanks for the compliment...i think?:mrgreen:no, i've known randel for a minute, and he's smarter and more independent than you are giving him credit for.
he's just wrong about unionshe joined the UAW about the time it was finishing the destruction of the American Auto industry, and methinks perhaps he worked himself a bit hard attempting to defend his new organization from quite alot of (well deserved) attack.
cp, i've provided links in various threads, if you are seriously interested, look up my posts and find them...yes, walker is trying to weaken the unions, hoping that people won't pay their dues, thus weakening the union, hurting their ability to organize, and effectively negotiate contracts.. and this is only the first step, i'm sure he is looking for a way to include all unions, public and private sectors, in this plan.
seriously? andrew klavan?:lamo just move on now if this is all you have got
the only fool here is you conservative, and i will gladly take the demerits if a mod wishes to hit me with them...you speak of things that you have no knowledge of, and when challenged, everyone of your opponents suddenly become knuckledragging neanderthals who could benefit from your brand of 'wisdom'....sorry, i don't consider it to be 'forced membership', as i had a CHOICE when i applied with my company...the first thing i was asked when i had my interview was ' do you have any problem with working in a union shop?' no i didnt...the second question i was asked was asked/told was' you will have two hours of straight time pay per month deducted from your wages for union dues, do you have a problem with this? no, no i did not.
there was no attempt at deception on anyone's part, it was made clear to me from the very start that the job i was trying to get was in a unionized shop, and that i would be responsible for union dues...NOTHING WAS FORCED.
later on after i became chairperson of the plant bargaining committee, management would ask me to sit in with potential groups of new hires , to explain the union to them, and how things worked....part of that discussion included from the get go...this is a union shop, does anyone here have a problem working in a union shop or with the UAW? The second thing i mentioned was their union dues, how much, and when they would come out. so these folks had a CHOICE at this point . i never had one person stand up and leave when i mentioned that it was a union shop and that they would be responsible for dues...NOT A ONE.
finally, i've explained a million and one times where the money for political activities comes from, you choose to ignore facts and continue to enjoy your fantasy of where you THIINK they come from.
:lol: dude, it's andrew fricking klavan...you will forgive me of course if i don't give him much credit as a source of how things work. ....anyhoo, good talkin' to ya cp, i'll pick up with ya later, stay safe my friend.this is called the "ad sourcinem" fallacy
seriously? andrew klavan?:lamo just move on now if this is all you have got
what exactly does Andrew Klavan have wrong? Specifics??
You have been shown over and over how taxpayer money gets to the unions, you choose to ignore it.
It's Klavan. Andrew frickin' Klaven.
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?