Wisc. Governor Makes a Cold-Blooded Threat to Sic the National Guard on Union Workers

[NCAA Umpire]

well chance has brought this fight to the forefront three times now...

Do you feel you have the need to be defended?

Well, I'm sure every human being likes to be defended. I appreciated Chance's comments, but I didn't want to get into the middle of that love spat.

I DO think we ought to get back on topic, though.

 

[BostonPirate]

Well, I'm sure every human being likes to be defended. I appreciated Chance's comments, but I didn't want to get into the middle of that love spat.

I DO think we ought to get back on topic, though.

I DO think you're right. Lets hope you got the last word on it.

as to the thread... what are your observations on the protesters... do you think they have the right to protest? Have they done anything illegal or untoward that you know of?

link us to sources if you have them for something like that. I believe in civil disobedience, but I abhor violence of anysort.

IF theres any violence going on there, I want to see that article or report so I can make an informed opinion on if these people DO need to be cleared out of the capital.

 

[Centexfarmer]

This post is directed specifically at CollegeUmpire:

Post #504 of this thread, which would be on page 11 at this point I posted the following:

That's true, and I agree with the premise of your argument as you've stated it within this one post.

If collective bargaining where a right, I would imagine that many groups would be lining up to do so within States that don't allow this provision.

My question then is, why support the elimination of that privilege, and therefore the possible elimination on a National level from those State's that still legislatively offer/allow collectively bargaining?

It seems to me, from what I've read, that the public service Wisconsin Union members have agreed "collectively" toward the Governor's goals in terms of balancing the budget (wage cuts, etc.), but aren't willing to concede the loss of being able to collectively bargain in the future.

How does that support your stand on this issue?

^ this time highlighted for emphasis.

In post number #508 you responded:

Truthfully, Centex, I don't support what he's doing as much as I don't oppose it.

OK, my Vicadin's kicking in (woo hoo, I love this stuff!). Time for me to go to bed. Besides, 5:30 a.m. comes early.

I copied and responded to you and Kulindahr in Post #509.

I even attempted to humor you in the response that I received from you in post my #510.

And we're now on page 12 of this thread and I've yet to receive your answer.

My friend and fellow CE&P Alumni Chance1 acknowledged me in post #567 while responding to mi amigo rareboy.

The discussion degraded, once again as it often does here in CE&P; into a quasi-pissing-purse-fight-match.

Say that 10X's fast.



So CollegeUmpire, let's take up where YOU left off here on page 12 shall we?

Well, I'm sure every human being likes to be defended. I appreciated Chance's comments, but I didn't want to get into the middle of that love spat.

I DO think we ought to get back on topic, though.

For the record there's not THAT much love there.

^ and once again highlighted for emphasis.

So how about it?

Here's the link to that post, which you can now quote from, and we'll take it from there:

Post #504.

If there's any hope of getting this thread back on topic, this would be it.

In this forum there's not a huge difference between being an umpire, and a moderator.

So long as the rules of the game, and the expected behavior is being followed, we CAN continue!

Otherwise I'll just shut it down, because I can.
.

 

[BostonPirate]

and dont forget my three questions in my last post just above, Ump.

 

[Centexfarmer]

<clears throat> Speaking of....

CollegeUmpire, you didn't address one point.

Do you realize that, if you get your way and the unions are busted, that you yourself will be hurt the most? Almost certainly make less money with fewer benefits.

It seems to me that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Seriously?

Seriously Johann?

Give him a chance to answer, then decide whether or not you want to gang up on him.

I spent nearly an hour composing my response, and I left things out because they didn't or weren't a part of the original discussion here.

I prefer to take it in bits.

and dont forget my three questions in my last post just above, Ump.

Urm...NO!

You get your ass in line!

I've been waiting since page 11 of this thread for a response, and you've been so far up the umpire's jock strap that I'm inclined to start moving your posts into the Fetish Forum.

Besides....Chance1 gave you the best advice in his post #567:

boston taking a deep breath

and posters not treating the teacher like he's a fraud

see how much better it is that way?

DO NOT make me stop this thread.

 

[BostonPirate]

its a shame I am not also an Amigo and alumni... I would be further ahead in line I guess.

 

[Centexfarmer]

its a shame I am not also an Amigo and alumni... I would be further ahead in line I guess.

Ahead in line for what?

Oh!

This?

Some of the 600+ responses in this thread can be summed up here:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u48PvBTl3u8[/ame]

I'm sorry, what were we discussing?

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm still waiting for a response to my question of how collective bargaining can be not a right while marriage, forming corporations, and having churches are rights, when they are exactly the same thing. Umpire can't seem to make up his mind whether to be serious or not, chance is being all over the place and not making a lot of sense, so I understand how it's easy to be distracted, but still.......

Anyone? Beuhler?

 

[BostonPirate]

Ahead in line for what?

Oh!

This?

Some of the 600+ responses in this thread can be summed up here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u48PvBTl3u8

I'm sorry, what were we discussing?

HA!!!

well I think this one is more like it... and notice the lady in blue lands more hits...hehe

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9y6ebtj8zA[/ame]

 

[BostonPirate]

I'm still waiting for a response to my question of how collective bargaining can be not a right while marriage, forming corporations, and having churches are rights, when they are exactly the same thing. Umpire can't seem to make up his mind whether to be serious or not, chance is being all over the place and not making a lot of sense, so I understand how it's easy to be distracted, but still.......

Anyone? Beuhler?

four people with multiple questions and I'm at the end of the line. I hope you're all bottoms.

 

[chrisrobin]

​

Hi! I'm Bucky the Badger, mascot of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I would like to dedicate this post to all the men, women and children who are courageously standing up to the union-busting, teabagging enemies of Democracy.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pabDLr57J9I&feature=related[/ame]

Let the recall begin!

 

[Centexfarmer]

I'm still waiting for a response to my question of how collective bargaining can be not a right while marriage, forming corporations, and having churches are rights, when they are exactly the same thing. Umpire can't seem to make up his mind whether to be serious or not, chance is being all over the place and not making a lot of sense, so I understand how it's easy to be distracted, but still.......

Anyone? Beuhler?

I'm sorry!

Who started this thread?

It wasn't me!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILieHoAly0o[/ame]

Very nice Kulindahr.

four people with multiple questions and I'm at the end of the line. I hope you're all bottoms.

What the hell does that have to do with anyone being "at the end of the line?"

You're still a bottom, so deal with it!



My Gawd!

OWN IT, and be PROUD of it!

I'm just saying.

 

[jackoroe]

Kulindahr, collective bargaining is not a right, because CollegeUmpire says so.

(BTW, I think you have a formidable point. )

It's a right because it has been legislated as being so. Legislation can be changed so that it is no longer permitted. I had a right to own a 30 round magazine in NJ, now I am prohibited from owning something I had a right to previously. Collective bargaining is not universally enjoyed by everybody, so it's obviously not one of the rights endowed us by our creator, but by virtue of legislation.

You can argue that it is unfair to change the law, but the fact is that they most likely can change it. If not, we have a process of judicial review.

 

[BostonPirate]

one thing is obvious. THis governor cannot legislate.

This governor cannot run his state. He has neither the political or diplomatic skills to get 70,000 protesters who represent the majority opinion in his state and the nation to calm down.

He is more interested in Koch and union busting, than he is the will of the people. Not only are his actions bringing down his party in that state, but they are forcing other governors within his own party to make pro labor pro union statements.

He is in over is head. He is completely incompetent, and he wont last more than a year, if he manages to stay on as governor through this crisis.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's a right because it has been legislated as being so. Legislation can be changed so that it is no longer permitted. I had a right to own a 30 round magazine in NJ, now I am prohibited from owning something I had a right to previously. Collective bargaining is not universally enjoyed by everybody, so it's obviously not one of the rights endowed us by our creator, but by virtue of legislation.

You can argue that it is unfair to change the law, but the fact is that they most likely can change it. If not, we have a process of judicial review.

If it's bestowed, it's not a right, but a privilege.

By your reasoning, freedom of religion once wasn't a right, nor freedom of the press, nor most of the Bill of Rights, for that matter. Those had to be "granted" by a revolution, so they were "obviously not... rights endowed us by our creator".

You draw an entirely arbitrary line.

 

[palemale]

It's a right because it has been legislated as being so. Legislation can be changed so that it is no longer permitted. I had a right to own a 30 round magazine in NJ, now I am prohibited from owning something I had a right to previously. Collective bargaining is not universally enjoyed by everybody, so it's obviously not one of the rights endowed us by our creator, but by virtue of legislation.

You can argue that it is unfair to change the law, but the fact is that they most likely can change it. If not, we have a process of judicial review.

Jackoroe is correct. Rights can be constitutional or statutory. Both can be taken away. Statutory rights can be legislated away, and the constitution can be amended to eliminate rights (e.g. prohibition). The Supreme Court has described federal statutes as conferring rights to collective bargaining in the private sector.

Section 1983 provides a federal remedy for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.

. . .

We agree with petitioner that it is the intended beneficiary of a statutory scheme that prevents governmental interference with the collective-bargaining process and that the NLRA gives it rights enforceable against governmental interference in an action under § 1983.

GOLDEN STATE TRANSIT CORP., Petitioner, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES. 493 U.S. 103 (1989).

 

[Kulindahr]

It's a right because it has been legislated as being so. Legislation can be changed so that it is no longer permitted.

Jackaroe, I don't think that that could be constitutional, because it would interfere with our right to freedom of association.

Since Kulindahr has more knowledge on this matter than I do, I'm going to pass the ball to him. (here, Kulindahr, catch!)

Thanks so much.

Let's start with the Declaration of Independence: rights are endowed, bestowed, inalienable. As Jefferson explained, rights belong to the people, who assign some to the government, giving it authority.

Government cannot, therefore, grant rights. It can only give what already belongs to the citizens. If it can grant joint bargaining, it does so only because that is already a right of the people.

Forming a union is nothing but an exercise of the right of freedom of association. Collective bargaining is nothing but freedom of choice, freedom of action, growing out of that freedom of association.

Individuals own themselves. All interaction between individuals is thus between two sovereign entities. Since each is equally sovereign, interaction is thus between equals. When equals interact, and there is agreement, the agreement is contractual, because it is based on the agreement of equals.

A union is thus a contractual organization which rests on the individual self-ownership of the members. Since the members have agreed that none will work for more, nor for less, than any of the others, that is part of the contract.

When individuals contract together to form a corporation, we treat that corporation as a single entity, a contractual entity. A union is the same: they are a single entity.

Since both entities have come about by free contractual association of self-owning individuals, they are equal entities. This is so whether the union, or the corporation, consists of a thousand, a hundred, or just one. And if the corporation wants to negotiate with just one of the individuals in the union, it must negotiate with all -- because that is their contract.

If government wants to say individuals may not do so, they are stealing the exercise of rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

Jackoroe is correct. Rights can be constitutional or statutory. Both can be taken away. Statutory rights can be legislated away, and the constitution can be amended to eliminate rights (e.g. prohibition). The Supreme Court has described federal statutes as conferring rights to collective bargaining in the private sector.

Rights cannot be taken away. The exercise of rights can be prohibited, but to do so is immoral and void. The exercise of rights can be punished, but to do so is immoral and void.

When a court or legislature speaks of bestowing or stripping away rights, it is speaking sloppily

 

[thewiz]

It is quite obvious this governor is not looking for solution but rather wants to impose. There are clear solutions to what is wrong in Wisconsin but the goal is not financial; it is destruction of unions which will ultimately play well for Republicans in the next electoin.

In the case of rights -- the outcome of this process impacts local, state and federal rights. The governor does not seem to understand that each level of government has certain responsibilities and his actions cross the line into all three areas.

We are the "United States." We are not the "Federal America." The states formed a union back in 1776 based on the premise that individually they could not provide certain things for the American people; rather some things crossed state lines and required a broader solution.

All men (and women) are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights. However, while I may pursue happiness by driving 140 miles per hour down the highway, the local, state and federal governments have established limits as to how much happiness I may enjoy. They also have established limits on how late I can drink, what I can smoke (and I inhaled when I was younger).

States empowered the federal government with certain powers but the federal government power comes not from the Congress and President but from what the states turn over to it. Over time this line has truly blurred because boundaries and state lines have blurred. One can go all over the country in a day whereas it used to take months and years.

States also grant certain powers to cities -- usually in the form of charters from which they operate. The city charger spells out the limits on rights that affect citizens as well as matters of taxation, representation, and other legal matters. Once chartered, cities are free to act so long as they stay within the limits granted by the state and found in the charter.

In the case of Wisconsin, the governor is attempting to dictate from the state level what cities and others may do. The problem is that it may adversely affect these local government levels in unexpected ways. It also voids the ability and power of local government to establish rules and operational mechanisms, instead "dictating" from the state level.

Certain rights have been long established in Wisconsin -- particularly the right to collectively bargain and form unions. The governor's attempt to limit these rights walks a slippery slope. His hidden language in the bill seeks to broaden rights of the state (in particular the governor) and has been ignored by FAUX and other media.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

I DO think you're right. Lets hope you got the last word on it.

as to the thread... what are your observations on the protesters... do you think they have the right to protest? Have they done anything illegal or untoward that you know of?

link us to sources if you have them for something like that. I believe in civil disobedience, but I abhor violence of anysort.

IF theres any violence going on there, I want to see that article or report so I can make an informed opinion on if these people DO need to be cleared out of the capital.

Of course they have the right to protest. I'm a near absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment (which is why I support the Supreme Court's big decision today, despite its emotional aspect of it).

I don't know if they've done anything illegal or not, but I am aware of some nasty shit being said by some of the demonstrators and/or Democratic Wisconsin legislators. So much for the post-Tucson shooting civility plea.

Do they need to be cleared out of the capitol? Well, common sense would say at least for a bit so they can clean the place. I hear there's some bad stuff hanging around the halls of the capitol.