Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:56 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not a "right" if it can be taken away.

Then in your opinion there is no such thing as a "right"? Because there is not a right in existence that cannot be taken away.

In the Constitutional sense we have rights... but then again we don't if the government can revoke them. I think a thing like a "right" can exist, but probably not in this country.

Woodruff wrote:Sometimes, "doing the right thing" goes completely counter to what society and government think you should do. That shouldn't stop you from still doing the right thing.

YES IT SHOULD
If I had lied and said that I didn't know what they were talking about I wouldn't have been in any trouble. Telling the truth gave me a felony that will allow people to legally discriminate against me for the rest of my life. Don't lie to the police or anything, but don't say a word ever.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:06 pm**

Symmetry wrote:Impressive chutzpah. Sherrod, ACORN, Planned Parenthood- just a few cases where the right did something similar. Gutter politics looks a lot to me like the left aping the tactics of the right here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOE7wuVbiy8 Something I found on Sherrod

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:22 am**

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not a "right" if it can be taken away.

Then in your opinion there is no such thing as a "right"? Because there is not a right in existence that cannot be taken away.

In the Constitutional sense we have rights... but then again we don't if the government can revoke them. I think a thing like a "right" can exist, but probably not in this country.

But any right can be taken away in ANY country. Rights exist at the whim of the government, whichever government that may be.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Sometimes, "doing the right thing" goes completely counter to what society and government think you should do. That shouldn't stop you from still doing the right thing.

YES IT SHOULD

It is worthy of consideration given specific circumstances, absolutely. Any situation calls for weighing the pros and cons and making a decision from that. But I maintain that NOT doing the right thing requires extreme circumstances if it is not to be done.

Juan_Bottom wrote:If I had lied and said that I didn't know what they were talking about I wouldn't have been in any trouble. Telling the truth gave me a felony that will allow people to legally discriminate against me for the rest of my life. Don't lie to the police or anything, but don't say a word ever.

I don't know the specifics of your situation, so I may be talking completely out of turn here...but telling the truth does not necessarily fall under doing the right thing.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:22 am**

Juan - your definition of right does not apply to any of the rights that I think we have in the US. For example, arguably we have the right to life, but that can be taken away by anyone including the government (whether directly or indirectly).

I think maybe what you mean is that a right is something guaranteed in the Constitution. But I don't want to put words in your mouth, especially since collective bargaining is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. If Congress repealed the National Labor Relations Act, there would be no more unions.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:02 am**

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not a "right" if it can be taken away. You guys are suffering from a lack of English-language education. What you guys call "rights" everyone else calls "privileges."
So while I'm forced to continue paying taxes, I have no right to the privilege that you guys say that I'm paying for... which is to vote. It sounds to me like you're just talking out of your ass.

And I didn't break the law. Well, I did break the law, but accidentally. I hit a guy riding a bike with the passenger mirror of my brand new van. He fell of his bike and hit a road sign. When I looked back I saw the sign shaking, and thought that was what I hit. The traffic behind me kept moving, so I did too. When the cops asked me what happened I told the truth. Bam, felony. And I thought that I was doing the right thing. There was no "decision to break the law." I'm not a bank-robber or rapist or some shit, so try to not betray how judgmental you really are before even knowing what happened. Obviously I did not even know that it was a felony, or I probably would have lied and gotten away with it. Which is what my attorney would have had me do. In my home state, just two weeks before the accident they upgraded a few dozen crimes to felony status IN A FUND-RAISING EFFORT. Failure to render aid after an accident was one of them.

PLUS losing the right to vote is really only a conspiracy to keep blacks from voting. But lets not get into that.

I will actually side with Juan on this topic. Their are WAY too many things that are labeled as a "felony" and the main purpose of it in my book is to take away our gun rights as individuals. Whatever your belief on the reason for so many little things being a felony is less important but it takes away too many of our rights any way you look at it.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:26 am**

thegreekdog wrote:Juan - your definition of right does not apply to any of the rights that I think we have in the US. For example, arguably we have the right to life, but that can be taken away by anyone including the government (whether directly or indirectly).

I think maybe what you mean is that a right is something guaranteed in the Constitution. But I don't want to put words in your mouth, especially since collective bargaining is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. If Congress repealed the National Labor Relations Act, there would be no more unions.

It is interesting that these "rights" to collectively bargain do not exist for any of the federal employees under Obama who seems very passionate about these "rights". Also, about half of other states public employees don't have these "rights" either. Wisconsin's new law will still give more bargaining options than almost all other public unions.

The public in wisconsin who pays out the lavish benefits are behind Walker in this. Too long here have School boards and local government been complacent in giving the union thugs everything they want. Even now many are rushing through contracts with no concessions to take them into 2013 avoiding the new law as long as possible. I thought they were in favor or giving a little back? They are giving nothing which shows how hypocritical they really are.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:32 am**

PopeBenXVI wrote: It is interesting that these "rights" to collectively bargain do not exist for any of the federal employees under Obama who seems very passionate about these "rights". Also, about half of other states public employees don't have these "rights" either. Wisconsin's new law will still give more bargaining options than almost all other public unions.

The public in wisconsin who pays out the lavish benefits are behind Walker in this. Too long here have School boards and local government been complacent in giving the union thugs everything they want. Even now many are rushing through contracts with no concessions to take them into 2013 avoiding the new law as long as possible. I thought they were in favor or giving a little back? They are giving nothing which shows how hypocritical they really are.

So speaks the guy who disdains real education so much he keeps his kids at home so they won't be "polluted" by such things as sex education, evolution, etc. :roll:

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:42 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
PopeBenXVI wrote: It is interesting that these "rights" to collectively bargain do not exist for any of the federal employees under Obama who seems very passionate about these "rights". Also, about half of other states public employees don't have these "rights" either. Wisconsin's new law will still give more bargaining options than almost all other public unions.

The public in wisconsin who pays out the lavish benefits are behind Walker in this. Too long here have School boards and local government been complacent in giving the union thugs everything they want. Even now many are rushing through contracts with no concessions to take them into 2013 avoiding the new law as long as possible. I thought they were in favor or giving a little back? They are giving nothing which shows how hypocritical they really are.

So speaks the guy who disdains real education so much he keeps his kids at home so they won't be "polluted" by such things as sex education, evolution, etc.

Define your view of "real education". I did not realize 8 year olds needed sex Ed to survive and be productive members of society. I sense your distain for my parental rights given to me by God to educate my own children.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:54 am**

PopeBenXVI wrote:
Define your view of "real education". I did not realize 8 year olds needed sex Ed to survive and be productive members of society. I sense your distain for my parental rights given to me by God to educate my own children.

Your comment shows how little you know of the education you criticize. And, yes, I disdain any parent who so rejects the Bible's principles as to think withholding truth and promoting lies is somehow "Christian".

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:24 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
PopeBenXVI wrote:
Define your view of "real education". I did not realize 8 year olds needed sex Ed to survive and be productive members of society. I sense your distain for my parental rights given to me by God to educate my own children.

Your comment shows how little you know of the education you criticize. And, yes, I disdain any parent who so rejects the Bible's principles as to think withholding truth and promoting lies is somehow "Christian".

Define your view of "real education" What truth about sex am I withholding from my children? All knowledge has it's place during the coarse of ones academic development. You don't start off a Kindergardener with trig if they don't need to know it at that time nor do they know the foundation of it first.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:27 am**

PopeBenXVI wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
PopeBenXVI wrote:
Define your view of "real education". I did not realize 8 year olds needed sex Ed to survive and be productive members of society. I sense your distain for my parental rights given to me by God to educate my own children.

Your comment shows how little you know of the education you criticize. And, yes, I disdain any parent who so rejects the Bible's principles as to think withholding truth and promoting lies is somehow "Christian".

Define your view of "real education" What truth about sex am I withholding from my children?

The point is that teaching sex education to 8 year olds is not part of normal curricula.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:42 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
PopeBenXVI wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
PopeBenXVI wrote:
Define your view of "real education". I did not realize 8 year olds needed sex Ed to survive and be productive members of society. I sense your distain for my parental rights given to me by God to educate my own children.

Your comment shows how little you know of the education you criticize. And, yes, I disdain any parent who so rejects the Bible's principles as to think withholding truth and promoting lies is somehow "Christian".

Define your view of "real education" What truth about sex am I withholding from my children?

The point is that teaching sex education to 8 year olds is not part of normal curricula.

Ok, just condom distribution though. We can tell them they are balloons when they ask.

Still waiting for your definition of "real education?"

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:54 am**

you'll never get that

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:53 am**

Juan_Bottom wrote:In the Constitutional sense we have rights... but then again we don't if the government can revoke them. I think a thing like a "right" can exist, but probably not in this country.

Collective bargaining in a public union is a state privilege, not a right endowed upon certain employees of WI by their Creator.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:53 pm**

PopeBenXVI wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
PopeBenXVI wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
PopeBenXVI wrote:
Define your view of "real education". I did not realize 8 year olds needed sex Ed to survive and be productive members of society. I sense your distain for my parental rights given to me by God to educate my own children.

Your comment shows how little you know of the education you criticize. And, yes, I disdain any parent who so rejects the Bible's principles as to think withholding truth and promoting lies is somehow "Christian".

Define your view of "real education" What truth about sex am I withholding from my children?

The point is that teaching sex education to 8 year olds is not part of normal curricula.

Ok, just condom distribution though. We can tell them they are balloons when they ask.

Still waiting for your definition of "real education?"

You will have to show me evidence of even a single school district that passes out condoms to 8 year olds. Here, not even high schoolers get them in school.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:06 pm**

The protesters may be out, but the garbage left behind most definitely is not.

Cleanup cost estimates range from $347,500 to $7,500,000, depending on who you ask.

So, who is going to take out the trash?

Tea party supporters have taken to Facebook to organize an event called “It’s Time to Take Out the Trash!”:

It’s not about partisanship or protests, but pride.

It is time to take out the trash… literally. In true Flash Mob fashion, on Sunday at exactly 1300 hours (1:00 pm for you non-military types) we will do an extensive police call (pick up the trash) around the capitol square. Regardless of the state the grounds are in, we will do this as both a literal and symbolic way to show our respect for our home.

TEA Partiers know how this is done. It is time to show OUR pride for OUR state OUR way and be the example.
Even if you cannot attend, please share this and invite all of your sane friends who share our love of Wisconsin.

No signs, no screaming, just a necessary cleaning.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/so-who-is-cleaning-up-the-wisconsin-capitol-after-union-protests/

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:19 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:you'll never get that

I have answered this many times, in fact. However, so as not to further divert this thread, I have started a new one.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:31 pm**

Political action committees giving the most money from 1999-2010, broken down by percentage received by party:

..........................................................................Millions Dem. Repub.
1 National Association of Realtors....................................$22.4 49.7% 50.3%
2 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers...............$16.4 96.8% 3.2%
3 National Auto Dealers Association..................................$15.8 33.7% 66.3%
4 Laborers Union.......................................................$15.2 89.7% 10.3%
5 National Beer Wholesalers Association.............................$15.1 34.3% 65.7%
6 American Bankers Association......................................$13.7 36.2% 63.8%
7 Teamsters Union.....................................................$13.5 92.0% 8.0%
8 National Association of Home Builders .............................$11.4 35.8% 64.2%
9 Credit Union National Association...................................$11.1 48.4% 51.6%
10 Carpenters & Joiners Union.......................................$10.7 79.6% 20.4%
11 American Federation of Teachers................................$10.0 98.4% 1.6%
12 AT&T Inc..............................................................$9.6 42.7% 57.3%
13 American Fed. of State/Cnty/Munic Employees................$9.4 97.0% 3.0%
14 United Auto Workers................................................$8.8 98.8% 1.3%
15 Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union...........................$8.7 98.5% 1.5%
16 American Medical Association.......................................$8.6 34.8% 65.3%
17 Operating Engineers Union.......................................$8.3 84.3% 15.7%
18 American Association for Justice................................$8.1 96.0% 4.0%
19 Service Employees International Union..........................$8.0 89.5% 10.5%
20 Association of Trial Lawyers of America........................$7.7 89.3% 10.7%
21 International Association of Fire Fighters......................$7.0 77.0% 23.0%
22 Plumbers/Pipefitters Union.......................................$6.3 94.0% 6.0%
23 Honeywell International..............................................$6.2 53.0% 47.0%
24 United Parcel Service.................................................$6.1 31.7% 68.3%
25 National Education Association...................................$3.6 93.0% 7.0%

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:43 pm**

Oh, unions donate to democrats? Thanks for that. I didn't know that.

Posted: **Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:26 am**

GreecePwns wrote:Oh, unions donate to democrats? Thanks for that. I didn't know that.

But you can understand why a lot of independents and conservatives in those unions who pay those dues have a problem right?

Posted: **Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:51 am**

Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Oh, unions donate to democrats? Thanks for that. I didn't know that.

But you can understand why a lot of independents and conservatives in those unions who pay those dues have a problem right?

That's what happens in groups. Not everyone always gets what they want. I am far more worried by corporations that don't even have to disclose donations to stockholders, customers.

Posted: **Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:57 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:That's what happens in groups. Not everyone always gets what they want. I am far more worried by corporations that don't even have to disclose donations to stockholders, customers.

Why would you be more worried about a group that spends their profits on political campaigns as opposed to a group that forces their members to pay dues that the leadership then determines which candidates they are spent on? Forcing someone to pay for political views they disagree with is simply wrong. I know you don't like for corporations to make profits, but that is their money to spend as they wish: they didn't have to force it from their members.

Posted: **Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:48 am**

If the members really care so much about having their money spent like that, then they should reconsider their membership. If your job forces you to be part of a union, get a new job. Of course finding a job is easier said than done, but thats an argument made by conservatives for those pesky lazy poor people.

Posted: **Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:32 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:If the members really care so much about having their money spent like that, then they should reconsider their membership. If your job forces you to be part of a union, get a new job. Of course finding a job is easier said than done, but thats an argument made by conservatives for those pesky lazy poor people.

There's a huge difference between thinking you deserve to be paid more and having your money taken by a group that you don't agree with simply because you work there. Those unions don't actually pay you, you pay them. Employers pay you, you don't pay them.

Posted: **Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:39 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Oh, unions donate to democrats? Thanks for that. I didn't know that.

But you can understand why a lot of independents and conservatives in those unions who pay those dues have a problem right?

That's what happens in groups. Not everyone always gets what they want.

sure, but it can, and it is, being fixed. More people can now get what they want.

Conquer Club

Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

Re: Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts