It appears that "Snowjob", "Ayn Rand cultist" &
"Jim De Mint" are painfully outta touch & on the losing side--------

-- Modified on 3/13/2011 7:02:52 AM

is the one on election day.
Last November, by a large amount, the American people said they wanted government, both State and National, to quit the wild, out of control spending and be responsible, and accountable, with OUR money.

You just seem to not be able to accept that "your side" lost and the "will of the People" has prevailed.

You, sir, are "outta touch".

proof of this ? Governor Walker's plummeting approval ratings. I'll take bets that the putz will be recalled in Jan, joining Ca gov Gray Davis in "the recalled Governor's hall of Fame"

Keep in mind Richard Nixon won a 49 state landslide in '72-----litle more than year & a half later, he was out of office.

"dumba_boy" is right.

Lastly, why do you use a "chickenshit alias" ?

-- Modified on 3/13/2011 8:11:21 AM

I bet you Governor Walker, who was lawfully elected by the people of Wisconsin, and is doing nothing more than fullfilling his campaign promises, will serve out his term. We can place wagers on him ever being reelected after you lose this bet to me.

Well Pri, what of it, are you willing to step up and back up your words?

" I'll take bets that the putz will be recalled in Jan"
"Lastly, why do you use a "chickenshit alias" ?



It was clear to me, his alias was making a sarcastic point, directed at you,at your expense.
I think it's a humorous alias.
You are beyond the shadow of any doubts,the biggest chickenshit on the board.
With absolutely no reviews,and a phallic handle, your credibility is definable as nil.
I would surely take your bet, if I thought there was any chance, of collecting my winnings from someone invisible and unknown beyond cyber Xs and Os.
Forget the money, put your mouth where your money is.
How about this for a bet,if he is recalled I will stay off the P@R board for 90 days, and if he is not recalled, you will do the same.
January 2012 the recall date.
Do you accept the challenge,or concede you are a  gutless chickenshit, with the empty mouth of  a donkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7LRVqPXyU&feature=related






-- Modified on 3/13/2011 9:45:37 AM

The reason why most don't because of outright illegal behavior by employers to target or fire any employee that attempts to form a union. The practices are so extreme that it even involves outright spying on employees when they're off the clock. Despite this, workers wishing to join a union still sometimes succeed, and in the case of Wal-Mart workers, when a union is agreed upon, Wal-Mart is more likely to close the entire store rather than accept a union victory. Add to that, you have right to work states, whose only purpose is to eliminate the effectiveness of collective bargaining, the constant threat of offshoring, and a business infiltrated National Labor Relations board, and you have a very poor environment for workers wishing to join a union.

Despite all this, the number of workers want to join a union has been growing in recent years. And I'd bet that after this bullshit that the GOP governors are trying to pull, union membership will begin to skyrocket. Republicans seem to sense this, which explains why they want to dictate to every state that they whole country must become a right-to-work zone.



-- Modified on 3/13/2011 9:48:15 AM

"Governor Walker, who was lawfully elected by the people of Wisconsin, and is doing nothing more than fullfilling his campaign promises"

sure----bet's on. One of us has till next January to collect.

We can discuss the amount in private.

I'll also accept Quad's bet.


Quad, fucking calm down------it's only a discussion board ! You get your rabies shots ?---

On this subject at least, I am going back to being a "Willyholic"

For you to call anyone a liar is absurd. Your relationship with the truth is casual and coincidental at best. You have no room to call anyone a liar

But the reality is that I posted a link that turned out not to be true. That was my bad, I fucked up for not double checking it, and was big enough to admit it. You posted this bullshit when I already posted this finding from politifact before, and you're still lying about it.

sort of like the present administration. lol

Take it ea
sy on yourself, I will book whatever action you are willing to risk.

Putting a muzzle on either of us is not part of the bet however. I have no desire to see you leave the boards. You and Quad can do whatever you want. Now if there were someway to collect on a bet that silenced either TrannyBoy or NuGuy, now that would be a bet worth making, as we would both be winners. lol

BTW I have no problems making the terms of our wager public, I have both won and lost bets made on TER in the past. That reminds me, MP67 owes me a hundred bucks on the Superbowl, I keep forgetting to tell himm where to send the money. I guess I could collect in person, but a hundred bucks probably won't cover the first hours worth of drinking with us two drunks. lmao

maybe I'll bump amount up later, depending on finances. I may be an obnoxious asshole,but I AIN'T a welcher. One of us can collect, either in Vegas, or a mailed check.

Walker can't be recalled till Jan------wonder when they hold recall elections in Wi ?

-- Modified on 3/13/2011 10:38:31 AM

I don't trust a word you say, never have. You are just a rather dishonest person, you are just like a previous left wing liar by the name of Zinaval, he too would simply pull shit out of his ass when he found himself on the losing end of an argument.

You didn't simply "fuck up" by not double checking a link, if you weren't called on it publicly you would probably still be quoting it to support your case, even if you knew for a fact it wasn't true.

BTW have you decided if the members of Law Enforcement are still "Pigs" or are they now your "brothers in arms" fighting the evil forces of union busters? I found it rather amusing how quickly you embraced your sworn enemies that moment they supported your cause. Typical Willy, I could cite pages of other examples regarding your lack of integrity, but I don't have the time or desire to.

I have no doubts that you will pay when you lose. Notice I said "when" not "if".

You might be a little over the top where it comes to playing "whack a troll" and you are definitely the "Chief of the spelling police", but I would never accuse you a being a welcher.

Let me ask you an honest question, even though Willy shares many of your political views, would you trust him to pay a debt where his word was the only collateral? or do you believe like I do that your check would "be in the mail" for all of eternity? lol

I'd think he'd pay up.

Now, as for others on other end of political spectrum---- ( I.E., Quad, F_U )--------errrrr------------

Tell us again that Gov. Walker campaigned on this bullshit.

All workers want the same thing GaG. I decent job with decent pay. Time off for a little vacation. The ability to care for yourself or family in times of illness. A little to save for retirement. That's all. That's not much to ask for with a 16.4 trillion dollar economy.

Cops are no different than I am, or any other worker in these desires. I stand in solidarity with them even if they don't stand in solidarity with me. Luckily, in the case of Wisconsin, they do.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/wisconsin-troopers-unlawful

The bible says it's wrong, lol. I've never gotten a thrill out of gambling. I don't understand why others do.

-- Modified on 3/13/2011 11:00:47 AM

I consider you both my "board buds"; can't we all be friends ?!-----

-- Modified on 3/13/2011 11:15:02 AM

Willy gets so worked up by the possiblity of losing his "Cushy Government job status" that he can't think clearly, nor can he contain himself in regards to staying within the facts.

This really isn't anywhere near life and death for me. As even Willy will admit, us "rich folks" will always figure out an angle, no matter how hard Willy and his ilk try to be our equals. What he hasn't figured out is that there will always be "haves" and "have nots" the best way to seperate yourself from the pack is to do just that, "seperate yourself from the pack" don't be a joiner. This country still rewards risk takers, sheep that follew their shepherds will never amount to anything, and anyone who settles for a goverment job for the so called "cushy benefits" is guaranteed a life of mediocrity.

...but she did have a life that ended suddenly. I should check my stock in the ACME Guillotine Company.

David Kay Johnston noted that some 90% of all Wal-Marts were built using tax payer dollars. And it's also been well shown that Wal-Mart tends to have a horrific economic impact on the local community. It's nothing more than an operation to suck money out of a community and send it to Bentonville, Arkansas.

But it is quite common for cultists like yourself to defend these state created entities known as corporations. Like I said before, you cultists like to talk a good game, but when the rubber hits the road, you guys are statists just like anyone else. You just prefer a state where profit and greed determines how things are run instead of using a democratic vote.

...maybe it is if you go bareback, but I have a part of me that wants to strangle anyone who asks for that.

Voting and polls share the same problem: Voters and the people polled don't have any stake in the answer. At best their effect on the consequence is very tiny, and their price for participation is very low. They can express any idea they want without consequences.

But practical decisions about their own lives, like whether or not to join a union, or what job offer to accept, have serious consequences in their own lives. They, literally, have their own money in the game.

Which is why people can tell pollsters that they believe in collective bargaining and unions, but not bother to join or materially support a union. Joining a union would be a waste of time, money, and resources to them because they are better off. A union couldn't get them better pay or working conditions, and the workers know it.

I promise it won't be painful this time.

Posted By: Priapus53

It appears that "Snowjob", "Ayn Rand cultist" &
"Jim De Mint" are painfully outta touch & on the losing side--------

-- Modified on 3/13/2011 7:02:52 AM

Interesting how union membership grows when times are bad, and employers HAVE to cut down on the workforce.

Freedom means that employers can fire workers who want to form a union. I oppose ALL laws that tell people who they can associate with, in any way. Of course some things you mention, like spying on workers when they are off the clock, SHOULD be illegal.

I don't blame Wal-Mart for closing stores when unions made unreasonable demands. The company is there to provide goods at low prices, not give union members easy jobs. What happens when a Wal-Mart opens a store in a new location is that it is as if everyone living nearby has gotten a big raise. And that includes the employees. I've just read up on the closing of one Wal-Mart, and it sounds like the employees are simply unhappy that some of them earn more than others, and some got promotions that others did not. It happens. From one article: "The Jonquière store is not meeting its business plan," it declared, "and the company is concerned about the economic viability of the store." Their business plan depends on keeping costs low, and many union demands, like share the work policies, increase costs unreasonably.

From a Businessweek article:

And since, like Willy, seem to believe everything you read on teh Internet, then this MUST BE TRUE!!!

YOU LOST,  GET OVER IT!!!!

I think you'll enjoy it. Free Lunch by David Kay Johnston. He's a very free market kind of guy.

I do blame government to taking bribes, but remember that "politics is the shadow cast over society by big business". You can't blame the puppet from jiggling when the puppet master is pulling his strings.

The number of subsidies to private business is absolutely astounding. We give billions in tax breaks to the oil industry when they've broken record quarterly earnings records. We gave so much to Bank of America that it effectively pays 0% taxes, and 46% of their profits come from tax payer dollars to boot. Hell, we even gave McDonald's $466,000 in tax payer money to promote chicken nuggets overseas.

That's not blaming a corporation for it's success. It's blaming them for bleeding us dry.

Its a mixed economy. Nobody ever said Wal-Mart is perfect. Its managers aren't Objectivists or Libertarians. They are doing what it takes to make money in our economy, and that unfortunately may include using tax money. If they do that, then they are wrong to do it. Of course, as much of the blame goes to the government officials that give it the tax money. You might even say that Wal-Mart has to accept such subsidies in order to compete with other companies that would get those subsidies. (IS there any independent documentation of this?)  But this is the first time I have ever heard of Wal-Mart being criticized for that. Its usually "exploitation of labor" or "selling junk" or some such nonsense.

I can separate the good a company does from what it does wrong. For you, a company has to be either absolutely perfect, or condemned as an evil exploiter. Why do you have such absolutist standards?  :/ That sounds cult-like to me.

Notice I was defending its union policy, not its policy of accepting government money. I never said it was a model free market corporation. It operates in a mixed economy, and acts according to the standards of a mixed economy.

The main reason Wal-Mart is condemned by the likes of you is that it is a successful company.

How did we get here?
Demacracy...One voice one vote....LOL
What a world what a world what a world. I wish it were that SIMPLE.
But unions and goverment employees?? That's really pilling on the bullshit if you ask me. If we are to have unions then lets have them for everyone.

Why are so many pension funds guaranteed by the FED?

Where the fuck is my guarantee?

I believe that in a system of perfect information distribution, that the majority will make decisions that will enhance the survivability (and therefore living standards) of all. It's not perfect, but it beats dictatorial rule, which I think is what you'll get without it, no matter how you organize it. You might find this an interesting read John.

...eliminate all business guarantees first. We can start with the elimination of limit liability.

Does the majority favoring something give it a moral pass?

If, for example, the majority favored slavery, would it thereby be okay?

"If they do not have the power to give tax money to special interests, business will not become one of those special interests seeking power over the government!"

So, you'd be in favor of eliminating the power of Congress to appropriate funds for anything, then?

"Bill Gates did not contribute to anyone's political campaigns until the antitrust lawsuit against him."

Ah, but did Bill Gates RECEIVE any tax payer dollars before that antitrust lawsuit?

"All the subsidy money going to business is an excellent example of the reason to return to sound money in the form of free banking, a gold standard, and a 100% reserve requirement."

Or, you could just get rid of corporate personhood.

"Only central banking and the massive borrowing it allows can sustain the kind of deficit spending that allows so many market distorting subsidies."

Historically, central banking has created more stable economies.

"Take away the deficit spending, limit government power to the Constitution, get rid of this welfare state, get rid of a vast amount of the burdensome regulation imposed on the economy, and you will see business entirely lose interest in its control over government."

There is a place where there is no deficit (or any) spending at all, government has zero power, there is no welfare state, and there's no regulation on business. That Rothbadian paradise is Somalia, which has had no functioning government since 1991. And despite that Somalia ranks 181st out of 194 nations by life expectancy, and 43% live below the poverty line, that doesn't stop the Mises cultists from singing it's praises.

http://mises.org/daily/2066

"As Ayn Rand said, is it business that corrupted government, or government that corrupted business?"

As Adam Smith said, capitalists would rather "collude than compete."

"As for the fear of monopolies, even natural monopolies, that is all nonsense."

I have one set of water pipes coming to my house. How can companies compete for serving me water? In my view, monopolies are as natural to markets as too much drinking is to puking. Please explain to me how free markets can in any way prevent monopolies. And please don't refer me to any more of your follow cultists to answer for you. I assure you, there's not many of them that I haven't read.

As much as I respect you, dude, the slavery- collective bargaining comparison is simply not valid for obvious reasons.

Johh, as a moral relativist,when it comes to the concept of being "right", I don't know if I can buy into the above sentiment--------

OMFG!

Its only when the government tries to BE the puppet master that business pulls the strings and becomes the puppet master.

A free market economy requires a system where power is taken from government officials. If they do not have the power to give tax money to special interests, business will not become one of those special interests seeking power over the government!

Bill Gates did not contribute to anyone's political campaigns until the antitrust lawsuit against him. Many free market thinkers have said that the antitrust suit was Washington's punishment for ignoring them. Business has no interest in meddling in government until government starts meddling with it!

All the subsidy money going to business is an excellent example of the reason to return to sound money in the form of free banking, a gold standard, and a 100% reserve requirement. Only central banking and the massive borrowing it allows can sustain the kind of deficit spending that allows so many market distorting subsidies.

Take away the deficit spending, limit government power to the Constitution, get rid of this welfare state, get rid of a vast amount of the burdensome regulation imposed on the economy, and you will see business entirely lose interest in its control over government. As Ayn Rand said, is it business that corrupted government, or government that corrupted business?

ENRON was only able to get regulations written in its favor because those who wrote the "deregulation" bill believed in "free markets--BUT...", that free markets were the best way to reduce prices, but that they had to be regulated to prevent monopolies from emerging. The result was an artificiall created market, (NOT a free market) the California Power Exchange, on which generators and distributors of electricity were required to buy and sell electricity under complex rules. Since government officials have no clue about the industry, they had to ask someone IN the industry to figure out how to write those rules, and that was officials at ENRON!

If they had had an interest in creating an actually free market, all they would have had to do is repeal legislation, not create new regulations. There would have been absolutely no need to ask anyone in the industry how to do it. ENRON would have had no influence in how it was done, and it would not have had the means to perpetrate schemes like Death Star.

As for the fear of monopolies, even natural monopolies, that is all nonsense.

Read Thomas Delorenzo's The Myth of Natural Monopoly":

How about abolishing all government guarantees? Get rid of those market distortions which cause "moral hazard".

The premise is: "Majority approval equals moral rightness."

I gave as an example majority approval of slavery to establish that the premise is incorrect.

Therefore, the fact that a majority of people favor collective bargaining rights does not make it a good idea.

Whether or not it is a good idea should be measured by means other than the mood of a mob.

If we accept the majority rule of elections as giving moral sanction to government actions, then it would follow that the Holocaust was morally right.

I think we can both agree the Holocaust was morally wrong; despite any elections. Therefore, elections and majorities do not make "right."

Right can only be judged independently via a different source. Otherwise, eventually you'll end up with slavery again because most people are too stupid to even realize they'd be imposing it upon themselves.

Defintely an example of your simplistic black & white thinking. In my case, never implied it applied to heinous crimes. I was referring to the OP which talked about collective bargaining.

Relativism can also apply to such issues as abortion & marijuna usage.

Trouble with "cultists" like yourself is that you're indoctrinated with "rigid" thinking & lack the capability to be flexible-----

So many fallacies.

"Historically, central banking has created more stable economies."

Central banks and their precursors were the CAUSE of instability, not the cure.

From George Selgin's "Central Banks as Sources of Financial Instability":

Then how do you decide that the Nazis were wrong to murder millions of Jews and other minorities? They believed they were in the right. By moral relativist theory, they were right. Same with slavery. Or female "circumcision" (genital mutilation). The people who perpetrate these horrific acts justify them on moral relativist grounds.

The alternative that does work is reference to a single objective standard, that of human life. Slavery, mass murder, and genital mutilation are wrong because they violate people's individual right to life.

Moral relativism is a stage I outgrew. It correctly identifies the fact that what is right for some people isn't always right for others. But it fails when it comes to things like murder, rape, war, genocide, and slavery.