When the left name calls, it's actually true. Which reminds me, didn't Stalin take out the unions too?

-- Modified on 2/18/2011 10:54:07 PM

From the side that lectured on civility in public discourse, they are back to Hitler images for the Gov of Wisconsin.  I know this is old hat, but I never had much self control.

And the White House and Pelosi were just expressing shock over such tactics. I am very curious to see if they condemn it in tomorrow's paper.  Nope. Just one side.

And the funniest thing is a month ago the left was talking about the Cross-hairs poster of targeted districts. Someone on this board said they never saw such an inflamatory thing in their life time.

And here is the left with Gov. Walker in cross-hairs.  

Never saw such a thing before.  Yeah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsnLfsbbM

-- Modified on 2/18/2011 5:30:11 PM

Ok, this is a amusing comparison...

Gov of Wisconsin (Basic Translation of the law being proposed):
   We're going to cut your benefits, and by the way you can never even talk to us about it again.

Obama (basic jist on health care):
  If you can afford insurance, buy it or Ill fine you.  The rest of the country is sick of paying your bills because you decided to pay your landscaper instead of your doctors bills.

Who's the bigger asshole here.

Now as far as your video,and the cross hair thing.
You are comparing striking union workers, people who want to get back too things like fileing, driving busses and sweeping floors.
To Sara Palin, who wants to (and with enough bulshit ads and whiskey could) rule the free world.................

To say  "By the way you can never even talk to us about it again" is something you just made up.
It is impossible to pass any law that does that. You can always raise an issue again in the next session of the legislature.  There is nothing in the law that prohibits it.  

If people don't like it, they can change it in 100 ways, from initiative, to elect a new governor, to elect a majority of the legislature that can over rule it, to amend the constitution.  

Funny thing about democratic republics:  They can never bind the next generation.  If people don't like it, they can vote the SOBs out, and put their own people in.  Problem is that this Gov was elected.  Didn't Obama  say a mere two years ago that elections have consequences.  Well, this is what he said he would do. People voted for it. Cry me a river.

How you make up this silly thing is amazing.

Second, you can distinguish and obfuscate all you want.  A month ago, the use of cross hairs was considered beyond the pale. It was not imaginable that anyone could do something that provocative.  The use of cross hairs was the same as encouraging people to murder.

Now, you distinguish one group using an image for their purpose which you like to another group using the exact same image for something you don't like.

Wow.  talk about splitting hairs.  And why can your group use the image she can't use?

Finally funny comment of yours. She wants to rule the free world. Yup. that's the goal. Ruling the free world.

The Dem Party Chairmen of the state has condemned the use of these signs and images.  

Before Tuscon, I never really thought they were that bad, and didn't object in the old days when the target was Bush.  My point has been suddenly they were beyond the pale when two years ago they were common. I was just raising this now because of the sudden concern for civility that escaped the other side for 8 years. .

The fact that the Dem Chairman has agreed they are improper does do him credit as being intellectually honest and consistent, which I respect.  He deserves credit for that.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wis-democratic-party-condemns-hate-fille

at the tea party protests, there were countless posters of "Obama is Hitler" along with pics of him drawn w/the Hitler moustache...

So would you care to explain how President Obama is like The Fuhrer...Did he invade Poland, etc..Was he responsible for the systematic murder of over 6 million Jews...

First, that difference doesn't exist.  In the case of the cross hair image, there is not truth or veracity.  It is a symbol.  Unless you are saying that when the Dems use it they really mean it, literally and truthfully, which means they do want to kill, then truth isn't an issue.

In fact, if it's true then, it's worse. It's worse to really mean someone is a target then to use it as an analogly.

Second, is it really true that the Gov of Wisconsin is like Hitler?  Do you think he wants to build ovens and burn Jews and Gypsies.  That is the image of Hitler, and that is what you are saying is true.

Stalin took out everyone.  I have always put him on a footing just one step below Hitler, which is why I think FDR was right in siding with Stalin.  If you are fighting the worst, you may have to temporarily side with the second worst.  A principle I have applied in other contexts.

Posted By: willywonka4u

When the left name calls, it's actually true. Which reminds me, didn't Stalin take out the unions too?

-- Modified on 2/18/2011 10:54:07 PM

Bit of an exaggeration, yea.  However  the point is there.

The main goal of a union is to give a collective voice to the workers to bargain pay, benefits and workplace safety.  By trying to pass a law limiting that is asking for a major fight.  
Could it be changed?  Yea, possibly in four years, or eight.  Now what will the condition of the unions be in 4 to 8 years of being powerless to represent their members?  How many people are going to contribute to it since it has no power?  How far back are their working conditions going to be pushed?

Now as far as the cross hairs thing, who are we comparing?
Striking union workers, that are having their benefits cut, and their union is being attacked at its core.  Regular people that just want to work and go home and be with their families.  The people in those streets are going to feel the hit directly, their quality of life is going to drop.

To Sara Palin, a quasi politician and major public personality with reports of interest in running for the President of the United States (ie: Leader of the Free World).  
Palin motivates people, its her job to get the masses rolling and she's good at it.  When she uses things like cross hairs on other politicians with differing views it has a whole different impact then a bus driver from Wisconsin.  
You don't feel that a person in her position should be held to a higher standard?

Even four is an exaggeration. I could be changed next year. The current version  specifies that it can be changed by voter resolution.  If the people of the state don't like it, the union gets enough signatures and next year it is on the ballot.

I have to say that the concern for "regular people" is wearing thin.  Barbers, taxi cab drivers, waiters, shop clerks, criminal defense attorneys, nurses, etc are regular people also.  They will be paying these salaries to public employees for then next 50 years.  Let's ask all those regular people how they like public employees getting the type of benefit that has run up a trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that nurses and bar tenders will pay.  As the shop clerk or cab driver if tenure for poor perfoming teachers is good for his kids.  

One jurisdiction (can't remember which) wanted to fire the 1,000 teachers with the worst record of attendance. I.e. workers who don't even come to work regularly, who get paid the full amount, get the most generous health care in the state and the best pension.  As a waiter how much he likes paying his kids teacher who is absent that much of the time.

As for cross hairs, the people we are comparing is irrelevant.  The question is whether the symbol is beyond the bounds of common decency.  

Two month ago - or there abouts, people (Dems.) were saying that the use of that symbol encourages violence.   Are you saying that the workers can resort to encouraging violence because their cause in just - in your opinion.

Two months ago, it was beyond common decency to use Hitler image.  Is there one standard for people who you support in terms of decent speach and another standard for those you disagree with in terms of what is decent?

Yes, you hate Palin.  But does she not have the right to use the same image as the people you like?

The cuts could have been made without taking on bargaining rights, and they would have gone through a whole lot smoother like they are across the country.  The main issue here is the bargaining rights, not the cuts.  Maybe you're right about being able to change back in a year or two with a resolution, but that would cost a fortune in advertising to do, while at the same time resources of the union are being cut.

Barbers, taxi cab drivers, waiters, shop clerks, nurses, are making their income of of other people in the same bracket.  (I dropped the criminal defense attorney, no pity for lawyers) Cutting union workers pay will effect them.  These cuts are amounting to 8% of the workers final pay, where are they going to make that money up?  They're not going to take a cab, their going to cut their kids hair at home, they will be buying less things at the shops.

I never condoned the image, I was pointing out the fallacy of comparing a union worker to a spokes person of a national political movement.  
Dose that union worker in Wisconsin represent the whole Democratic/Liberal party?  Whats that persons name?  How many millions of people does that person effect?

Now who does Sara Palin represent?  

It seems to me what you are saying is that everyone voice carries the same weight, NOT TRUE.

Also I never stated that I hated her, just that her actions hold more weight than an average person and must be subject to more scrutiny.

You wee saying that it couldn't be changed. Now you switched to the merits.  trimming public employee union benifits will not cut the salary of barbers or taxi drivers.

I don't know the name of the union official. Can't find it now. I am just giving him credit not on the merits. He does not want any cuts. I am giving him credit for being consistent on the use of Hitler and cross hairs.

-- Modified on 2/19/2011 12:38:03 PM

First, if you look at videos, the use of that image by the Tea Party was very rare. If you look at videos scanning the crowd, taken by relatively neutral sources, like major news outlets, even those who favor Obama, they were pretty rare.

You can always find people in a crowd, but that may not represent the crowd.  

In any event, the Tea Party was doing what the Dems did before - use Hitler images.  Until Tuscon, it was bad taste, but no one really made that much of it. After Tuscon, the Dems went bongos about how it was beyond the standards of decent behavior.  

Now the protestors, totally tied into the Dems, to the point where they get support from Obama's political machine, are using the image that was beyone decent behavior.

I am asking, why did it suddenly become okay.

Also,you missed my point asking how many Jews the Gov killed.  
The use of Hitler images by either side has been figurative - or at least I hope so.  I don't think that either side meant it literally.  So the Tea Party using it wasn't saying Obama invaded Poland any more than the Dems using was saying Bush invaded Poland.

HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER, when I mentioned it  a couple posts ago, Willie said it was true. That takes it out of the realm of figurative, and into literal, which is why I asked how many Jews did the Gov kill.  


-- Modified on 2/19/2011 12:40:30 PM

act like 3-year olds......stomp and throw a fit to get their way...god help us survive the crew. these lowlifes are bringing us down to the level of a thrird world country!

why do you post here? Your posts are petty and banal. Your point is that you are anti union but you dont have the balls to say it.

You are turd sucking bottom feeding filth.

Bark, Pups. a new record on insults that don't address the subject. Had to say, "good work.
Bark. Barkl Bark.

Bark. You have so much substance. Look at it. Bark. Ruling Class. Bark. No god. Bark.  Bark
Hump Charlie's leg. Bark.

Petty.
Bark.
Banal Bark.

Sincerley,
Running dog

Can't find the name of the union "official"...  how do you know he/she is an official and not just a member or a supporter?  
(Note:  I won't act like a republican and say he/she was a right wing plant.)

I don't know where you live, but here, taxi drivers and barbers get a commission type pay and tips, not a salary.  (Actually cab drivers lease their cabs from the cab company, lets say $350 a week, any thing after that they get to keep)  Now how does cutting the amount of money that their customers have not effect the amount of money spent?

Now as far as bargaining rights...  again.  Lets review a couple of things

      Union members are going to loose 8% of their take home pay to help pay for benefits (unfortunate but most likely necessary at this point in time)
      Until a new law, resolution ect is passed the union can not bargain with the state.  Getting a law changed or a resolution passed costs boat loads of money that union workers don't have.
      All union dues are now optional.  This sounds nice, however it is leaving union workers the choice of supporting a union that can not fully represent them or using the money to pay bills that are going to stack up due to lack of income due to the cuts.  Funding for the union will drop.
      Unions must have yearly elections..  another expense/distraction being put on the unions.  Imagine yearly Governor or state rep elections, nothing would ever get done.

Here's an analogy for you,  (Gona refer to the union as a single person)
 The Governor of Wisconsin drove Union to the middle of a desert (That's the cuts) and told him he would have to walk back.  
 While Union was gripping about this, the Governor got out of his car and tried to take a baseball bat to his legs...  before he tells him to start walking.  (Bargaining rights).
 Union is currently trying to get the bat away from the Governor.
 You think Union is acting wrong.

All I can say is in an hour, the unions could raise $25 million dollars and have signature for a recall or a repeal.  

With all the nation wide resources from all allied forces, take it to the ballot.

Also, cab drivers and others may have negotiate rates, but they have a natural economic force keeping their rates in line.  If they go too high, no one rides.  If public employees go too high, well, the rest of us can eat crap.

Can you clarify please, are the union workers the lowlifes in your opinions?

What are bargaining rights as applied to a union?
Bargaining rights are the ability of a group of American Citizens to speak with one voice to get what they want.
Can they get what they want?  Depends on the situation.

So Phil, here's a question, at what point in time is it acceptable for any part of the United States Government to set limits on the ability of citizens to group up and speak with one voice?
Regardless of the size of the group, or what they are after there is only one answer....

FUCKING NEVER

At NO point can any part of the US government at any level DICTATE, HAMPER, OR RESTRICT the ability of Americans to group up and speak.

FUCKING NEVER

I don't care if the group is Tea Party or Union...  or a group of people that want to set up a US monarchy or make a law that we all have to wear pink on Tuesdays.

If the Governor can't work with them, then he can fire every last one of them and try to build from scratch.
How ever there will probably be an other Union in a few years.