Wednesday, June 20, 2012

A Butch-League Presentation 2

Not only, folks, is Rachel Maddow a bald-faced liar, she's a doltish one as well. I mean, just look at the frigging numbers, for Christ. Even if there WAS a 121 million dollar surplus in Wisconsin for 2011 (there wasn't, there was a 137 million dollar deficit - Ms. Maddow either didn't read the entire memo or did and then tried to pull a fast one), the most that the deficit would have been with Governor Walker's tax cuts (never minding, of course, that the tax cuts weren't going to be taking place until 2012 - yet another Maddow lie) would have been 19 million (121 - 140). Even frigging Maddow herself eventually started using the 137 million dollar deficit number. I mean, seriously, duh!!

47 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Fiddle Dee, Fiddle Dum... Facts do not matter. It's the progressive goal, don'tcha know?

dmarks said...

"Even frigging Maddow herself eventually started using the 137 million dollar deficit number. I mean, seriously, duh!! "

But as you show, she intentionally lied about the budget for quite a long time before referring to the facts.

And some call this journalism? I'd be hard pressed to see someone at Fox News (MSNBC's mirror on the right) to do worse than this.

Fat chance Maddow will apologize for screaming about fictional numbers for all that time, even though she now uses the correct ones.

Rational Nation USA said...

Better late than never I suppose.

w-dervish said...

Redux Redux.

dmarks said...

RN: So, does this mean you would hire Maddow as your accountant?

Rational Nation USA said...

Not even a chance.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Who's the bull....Maddow or her girlfriend?

w-dervish said...

Wanker cutting taxes for the wealthy, destroying jobs and busting unions... or Rachel Maddow's reporting on Wanker. With this THIRD post Will makes it clear which he thinks is worse. Disgusting.

dmarks said...

Walker gave Wisconsin teachers a more than $1000 a year raise. That's the amount that was formerly taken from teacher's paychecks against their will. Now, the teachers have a choice of whether or not to sign this money over to political candidates.

How can anyone, other than a person opposed to worker's rights, object to this?

w-dervish said...

Wanker cut the pay of teachers by an average of 30 percent.

Union dues pay for the running of the union. If the union is able to negotiate the dues are money well spent.

How can anyone -- other than a person opposed to worker's rights -- support Wanker's war on teachers?

dmarks said...

Union dues pay for partisan political activities, whether or not it is in the interest of the workers. This is one reason the payment of dues (membership) should be voluntary.

w-dervish said...

I don't believe unions or corporations should be able to use their money for political activities. However, so long as corporate leaders can force the owners (stockholders) to spend money on partisan political activities against their will... I'm opposed to unilateral disarmament.

This is one reason why we need to either overturn Citizens United or Pass a Constitutional amendment allowing for limits on political spending.

dmarks said...

WD said: "However, so long as corporate leaders can force the owners (stockholders) to spend money on partisan political activities against their will... I'm opposed to unilateral disarmament."

When does this happen? Do you mean that when stockholders are paid dividends, a chunk is skimmed off the top to go to political causes?

And you have it all wrong with your unilateral disarmament argument: because you think the corporations are blasting away at stockholders, you want unions to be able to blast away at workers.

Since I favor freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to participate in politics as demanded by the First Amendment, I would not restrict individuals rights to speak out on political causes. But only if they chose to.

"This is one reason why we need to either overturn Citizens United or Pass a Constitutional amendment allowing for limits on political spending."

No we don't need this. If there's a campaign ad you don't like, why not just ignore it? There's no need for the jackboot of the State to kick people in the throat for daring to criticize those in power.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: When does this happen?

The corporations are owned by the stockholders. The stockholders should at least be able to vote if they want the coporation (they own) to spend money on political activities. Currently they are not allowed a vote.

You lie when you say you favor freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. If you really favored these things you'd be opposed to corporations spending money on political activities without the consent of the stockholders.

dmarks: ...because you think the corporations are blasting away at stockholders, you want unions to be able to blast away at workers.

I don't know what you're talking about with this "blasting away" nonsense. Corporations do spend money on political activites that their stockholders (the owners of the company) may disagree with. This is a fact, not just something I "think".

dmarks: If there's a campaign ad you don't like, why not just ignore it?

The evidence shows that whichever canidate spends the most usually wins. Why do you think this is? It's because people don't ignore the ads, they listen to them.

dmarks supports the current system wherein the candidate who spends the most usually wins because he knows his side has the money advantage. It has nothing to do with his bogus "support of free speech".

I oppose it because I believe that it's WRONG that those with the most money get the most free speech. Both sides should get an EQUAL chance to make their case... then let the voters decide.

It's the difference between democracy (which I support) and plutocracy (which dmarks supports).

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...you want unions to be able to blast away at workers.

This is a completely false accusation. I want unions to be able to DEFEND workers, which is the entire purpose of unions. If the union isn't representing the worker... then the workers can throw out the leaders and elect new ones.

You don't like unions because workers receive fairer wages when they belong to a union... which means less money for the plutocrats. dmarks strongly objects because this interferes with his strong desire that workers be paid as little as possible so the wealthy elites can get even richer and even more powerful.

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD,why do you continue to make idiotic statements?

Stockholders vote each year on the companys board of directors...if they dont like how the companys assets are being allocated they can replace them,and of course if their unhappy with the companys direction they can always sell their stock.

Rusty Shackelford said...

BTW.....Today is Elizabeth Warrens birthday.....as a gift the Scott Brown campaign gave her a pre-paid membership to Ancestry.com.

w-dervish said...

I am a stockholder, so I already know this. They only give you a choice between a limited number of people, all of which could be (and probably are) of a similar mind. Voting for one over the other won't change much.

And why should I (an owner) have to sell my stock? How is it appropriate that non-owners can dicate to owners that company money be spent on political activities the owners disagree with?

Also, most voters say the "controversy" regarding Elizabeth's Warren's ancestory won't affect their vote. Feel free to keep bashing her for this... just be aware that it's getting you nowhere.

Rusty Shackelford said...

How are board members "non-owners?"

Every board member I've known has received either stock or options for their service.

You make my point about your idiotic statements.

Go somewhere and post on movie scores...not on business,which you know very little about.

dmarks said...

WD said: "This is a completely false accusation."

No, it is not. The situation which you are defending has unions bullying people and forcing them to join and pay dues against their will.

"If the union isn't representing the worker... then the workers can throw out the leaders and elect new ones."

Or better yet, the worker can refuse to be a member, refuse to pay dues, and keep working. That sends a big message to the worker.

"You don't like unions because workers receive fairer wages when they belong to a union..."

They don't receive fairer wages, which is one of the problems I have with unions.

"....with his strong desire that workers be paid as little as possible so the wealthy elites can get even richer and even more powerful.

When the WD Train of Lies works up a head of steam, it sure rockets down the tracks. Consider that we have been talking about government worker unions, which don't stick it to corporate fatcats, but to the average working joe.

I guess you don't want the average citizen, who foots the bill for the handouts to greedy public sector unions, to have any wealth or power, do you?

dmarks said...

WD said: "Also, most voters say the "controversy" regarding Elizabeth's Warren's ancestory won't affect their vote. Feel free to keep bashing her for this... just be aware that it's getting you nowhere."

I've been still sticking with the Natives on this issue. Warren is a fake, a fraud, a white person of privilege falsely claiming to be a Native American to get more privilege.

And you said earlier that she is the victim of Indians.

WD said: "The evidence shows that whichever canidate spends the most usually wins. Why do you think this is? It's because people don't ignore the ads, they listen to them."

That's called the free and open exchange of ideas about the most important matters of the nation. IF you don't like it, move to China, where people don't have the rights that you again and again bash, complain about, and want outlawed.

It's the difference between democracy, which I support, and fascism, which WD supports.

dmarks said...

WD said: "You lie when you say you favor freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. If you really favored these things you'd be opposed to corporations spending money on political activities without the consent of the stockholders."

Completely bad analogy. Most workers who are in unions are forced to join against their will.

I know of no stockholder forced to invest in a company against their will.

Rusty, you are a business expert.... are stockholders routinely forced to invest in corporations?

w-dervish said...

Rusty: How are board members "non-owners?" Every board member I've known has received either stock or options for their service.

They own far less stock then the rest of the shareholders. Most do not own 51 percent, which is the only way they should be able to completely disregard what the rest of the shareholders want.

Rusty: Go somewhere and post on movie scores... not on business, which you know very little about.

It doesn't seem to me that you know that much about business, just about how Conservatives believe business should operate (they should be allowed to screw the workers and the government should leave them alone). If you have no interest in the Liberal view on this matter... find a blog (or start one) that is invitation only (and only Conservatives are invited). Otherwise shut yer yap -- because I'm not letting Rusty chase me away.

dmarks: Completely bad analogy. Most workers who are in unions are forced to join against their will. I know of no stockholder forced to invest in a company against their will.

I never said stockholders were forced to invest in a company against their will. I said that -- after they have already invested -- they should have a say in how the company is run (and be able to veto political spending). Stockholders are owners. Why do you believe the owners should have no say in their own company?

Also, no worker is forced to apply for a union job. If they're looking for a nonunion job... there's a lot of them out there. They can apply for one of those. There is no "forcing" taking place. And why do you keep saying "most" workers don't want to be in unions? You have no proof that this is the case. I've asked you for it and you ignored me, so what else can I conclude but that there isn't any?

w-dervish said...

dmarks: No, it is not. The situation which you are defending has unions bullying people and forcing them to join and pay dues against their will.

Unions don't bully workers into joining. The choice about whether or not to join is entirely up to the worker. If the person doesn't want a union job... don't apply for one.

dmarks: They don't receive fairer wages, which is one of the problems I have with unions.

They earn an average of 5 thousand a year more.

dmarks: When the WD Train of Lies works up a head of steam, it sure rockets down the tracks. Consider that we have been talking about government worker unions, which don't stick it to corporate fatcats, but to the average working joe.

My "train" is a train of truths. Public sector unions "stick it to the corporate fatcats" by raising wages for workers.

Corporations have to compete for workers and end up paying fairer wages. Public sector unions are good for workers in the private sector, even if they aren't in a union.

dmarks: I guess you don't want the average citizen, who foots the bill for the handouts to greedy public sector unions, to have any wealth or power, do you?

The public sector unions aren't "greedy", so the rest of your statement is moot.

dmarks: I've been still sticking with the Natives on this issue. Warren is a fake, a fraud, a white person of privilege falsely claiming to be a Native American to get more privilege.

She didn't "falsely" claim it. Her mother told her their ancestory contains Cherokee blood. Also, she didn't mention it until after she was hired.

dmarks: And you said earlier that she is the victim of Indians.

I did not.

dmarks: That's called the free and open exchange of ideas about the most important matters of the nation. IF you don't like it, move to China...

You're moving to China? I assume yes, because you're the one opposed to "the free and open exchange of ideas". You believe in the paid-for broadcast of ideas, and that those with the most money get to broadcast their ideas the most. I'm in favor of the free and open exchange of ideas, in that I think each candidate should have an equal opportunity to let the voters know where they stand on the issues.

Anyway, I wish you good luck in your new life in China.

dmarks: ...people [in China] don't have the rights that you again and again bash, complain about, and want outlawed.

What rights do I want outlawed? The "right" of the plutocrats to rape workers? The "right" of those with the most money to buy the most free speech? Damn right I want these things outlawed. I make no appologies for my defense of American's workers.

dmarks: It's the difference between democracy, which I support, and fascism, which WD supports.

The policies you support all increase the power of the plutocrats, so it's YOU who supports fascism. I'm the guy who supports democracy.

Rusty Shackelford said...

dmarks,no one is forced to invest in a certain company...if WD and someone of his ilk dont agree with the direction a company they'd like to invest in is going,its simple....dont buy.

Personally,if I had an investment turning a reasonable return on a consistant basis I could care less who they donate money to.

I have'nt met many very completely idealistic people who's investment strategy is based entirely on their personal beliefs be successful.

w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

WD said: "I assume yes, because you're the one opposed to "the free and open exchange of ideas". You believe in the paid-for broadcast of ideas, and that those with the most money get to broadcast their ideas the most"

I just don't want the government to censor political criticism, even if it is "paid for". The First Amendment of our Constitution prohibits such censorship.

It is a fact that there is no open exchange of ideas if the government comes in and censors people for arbitrary reasons (including that the speaker is too wealthy, or belongs to an organization the government dislikes, such as a corporation, and illegally chooses to censor)

If you don't like what someone says, just ignore it. Grow up!

"The policies you support all increase the power of the plutocrats"

The problem with your ideas is that you don't want the rulers to relenquish any power to the ruled, on the off chance that these "plutocrats" (a tiny percentage of the ruled) would get some more power. You deny all to those who are not "plutocrats" as a result.

"What rights do I want outlawed?....The right of those with the most money to buy the most free speech?"

Hey, Mr Fascist Thug... this is protected under the First Amendment... which has no clause to deny free speech to people just because they have a level of wealth you dislike.

If you don't like what they say, why not ignore it? I have no problem ignoring the speech of plutocrats like George Soros.

Time for you to stop trying to wipe out the Bill of Rights.

"Public sector unions "stick it to the corporate fatcats" by raising wages for workers."

Perfect example of illogic on your part. I will give you a do-over. How do public sector unions stick it to corporate fat-cats when their "victims" are the average taxpaying citizen and recipient of government services?

"The policies you support all increase the power of the plutocrats, so it's YOU who supports fascism."

No, my policies increase the power of the ruled... only a tiny percent of which are wealthy. The 99%. Your policies directly increase the wealth, power, privilege, and control of the ruling elites: perfectly fitting in with the definition of the word "fascism". Just because these people are "elected", you think they should have dictatorial control over our private lives.

"I never said stockholders were forced to invest in a company against their will. I said that -- after they have already invested -- they should have a say in how the company is run"

No one forces them to invest in the company. They have a "say" by the ability to invest, or not invest.

"Also, no worker is forced to apply for a union job."

You are being misleading and dishonest. There is no such thing as a "union job", just as there is no such thing as a "baptist job" other than for clergy. Union membership, like being a Baptist, has nothing to do with your ability to do a job.

You are being quite anti-worker if you are denying workers the right to employment for refusing to join outside organizations that have nothing to do with the work or their ability to do it.

"There is no forcing taking place"

There is. Forcing is the rule. Workers in these places are fired unless they give a large part of their hard-earned paycheck to an outside organization for no reason.

"And why do you keep saying most workers don't want to be in unions?"

Because that is what the workers say. 90% of American workers say "union no" by choosing not to join. Of the remaining 10%, roughly half are forced to pay dues against their will. I side with the workers, and you never do.

w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

dmarks: I just don't want the government to censor political criticism, even if it is "paid for".

I don't believe you. Here is what I know your real agenda is:

[1] Oppose unions because unions support Democrats.

[2] Support efforts to bust unions so less money can be spent supporting Democrats.

[3] Support spending by corporations without the consent of their shareholders because corporations are more likely to support Republicans.

[4] Lie about advertising being an effective tool in swaying public opinion by saying people should "ignore it".

[5] Attack people who point out the effectiveness of advertising by declaring them "arrogant" and telling them to "grow up".

THE RESULT

[1] More money is spent advertising Republican ideas.

[2] Public opinion is swayed, and more people, lacking adequate information, vote Republican.

[3] More Republicans are elected due to an unfair money advantage, NOT because their ideas are better.

If this is not your agenda, then it is the agenda of those who have fooled you.

THE BOTTOM LINE

I support fairness. Each candidate should have an EQUAL opportunity to present their ideas, and then the voters decide. You seek an unfair advantage for your side. I support Democracy and dmarks support plutocracy.

dmarks: The First Amendment of our Constitution prohibits such censorship.

It does not. The First Amendment applies to people, not corporations.

dmarks: No one forces them to invest in the company. They have a "say" by the ability to invest, or not invest.

You take this position because you know it gives your side the advantage. Again, you're opposing fairness/democracy. Owners of the company should be able to vote on political contributions (if corporations participating in election activities is allowed at all).

And what the hell does investing for profit have to do with political matters? Corporations should stay out of political matters... period.

dmarks: Forcing is the rule. Workers in these places are fired unless they give a large part of their hard-earned paycheck to an outside organization for no reason.

There is no "forcing". Nobody forced them to apply for a union job in the first place. They chose to join the union by applying for the job.

And they don't give a "large part of their hard earned paycheck". They give a small part, for which they receive higher pay. Union workers earn an average of 5k a year more than non-union workers.

dmarks: Because that is what the workers say. 90% of American workers say "union no" by choosing not to join.

Actually, the majority of workers say "union yes". The problem is there is no union for them to join (due to Conservative anti-union activities and union busting).

I side with the workers and with unions while dmarks sides with the plutocrats and against the workers.

dmarks said...

WD said: "It does not. The First Amendment applies to people, not corporations."

Yes. And it applies to people whether or not they are members of such organizations as corporations.

You can't censor corporations without censoring the individuals that make them up.

"I support fairness. Each candidate should have an EQUAL opportunity to present their ideas"

Bottom line: You support fascism, and only support fairness when you personally think something is fair (out of total ignorance). You support the rulers deciding what is fair, instead of the people. Why not just let everyone speak, and let everyone decide for themselves what is fair? Your fascistic requirement that government control and limit political expression is right out of Red China, and directly guts the First Amendment.

Your way is clearly fascism: you'd have the government gag people for criticizing those in power. I say, let the people speak. If you don't like it, ignore it. Grow up and learn some tolerance.

"You take this position because you know it gives your side the advantage."

No, I take this position because I believe people should have the right to choose whether or not to join political organizations.

"Again, you're opposing fairness/democracy."

I am supporting fairness: the people involved decide what is fair. Outsiders have no idea.

As for democracy, that is for running government, not private places. Guests in a place have the right to vote with their feet.

"Owners of the company should be able to vote on political contributions"

That's a real stupid idea.

"There is no forcing. Nobody forced them to apply for a union job in the first place"

There is "forcing". Why the hell should a job be a "union job"? Makes as much sense as a job being a "Baptist job", or "Masonic job"?. It is abuse of workers to tie employment to membership in organizations that have nothing to do with the job. Yet you demand this. You oppose workers rights to choice.

Your logic is just like saying that women at the company should have sex with the boss if he demands, and it is OK. No one forces them to work there.

"Actually, the majority of workers say "union yes".

No, they don't. I defy you to come up with any stats that more than 50% of American workers are involved in unions. You can't

"The problem is there is no union for them to join"

There are large numbers of unions in the United States. Man, you are losing it.

"due to Conservative anti-union activities and union busting"

Actually, it is because the overwhelming majority of workers want nothing to do with unions.

dmarks said...

Finally, on this, I side with the workers. Because of this, I tend to side against the unions. And I always take the workers' side in worker-vs-union struggles (such as right-to-work).

dmarks said...

I missed this WD pack of lies:

"I don't believe you."

You should, because I am being factual.

"Oppose unions because unions support Democrats."

No, I oppose unions because unions force their workers to give money to Democrats, even if the workers oppose this. In the instances unions have donated to Republicans (and it happens), I strongly oppose this too. Political contributions should be left to individuals. Workers' choice. There, one down.

"Support efforts to bust unions so less money can be spent supporting Democrats."

I don't support efforts to bust unions. You have me confused with someone else. This is easy.. Next

"Support spending by corporations without the consent of their shareholders because corporations are more likely to support Republicans."

That's bullcrap. That is like a homeowner requiring consent of someone who bought a lamp at a garage sale in order to use some of the money to give to Obama. You are comparing apples and oranges.

No one is forced to become a stockholder. Workers are usually forced to join unions.

"Lie about advertising being an effective tool in swaying public opinion by saying people should ignore it"

I am aware of the First Amendment. You are not. There's nothing in it to enable censorship if some close-minded pinhead doesn't like what is being said. Under freedom of speech, the close-minded pinheads just ignore it.

"Attack people who point out the effectiveness of advertising by declaring them "arrogant" and telling them to "grow up"."

I've never done this. However, I have called you arrogant (and quite accurately) a fascist because you want the ruling elites to censor advertising.

"More money is spent advertising Republican ideas."

So? If you don't like it, sit down and shut up. Obama outspent McCain by a huge margin. And had more ads. I didn't agree with the ads. But want to know what I did? Nothing. Unlike you, I respect the right of those with differing opinions to speak out.

"Public opinion is swayed"

Wow. That's what happens in a free and open society!

"and more people, lacking adequate information, vote Republican."

Here your arrogance comes into play again. These voters disagree with you. I trust them. not a know-nothing who only knows his own life not those of others.

"More Republicans are elected due to an unfair money advantage, NOT because their ideas are better."

The voters disagree. I trust them, not you.

"If this is not your agenda, then it is the agenda of those who have fooled you."

yes, we know you are a super-arrogant a-hole who thinks that the 90% of Americans who disagree with you are all fools.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: And it applies to people whether or not they are members of such organizations as corporations.

Sure. The people retain their individual right to free speech. What you want are additional free speech rights for the leaders of the corporations. You want them to be able to use corporate money (without the consent of the shareholders) to buy political ads... thus "speaking" much louder than an average person. This is an enhanced free speech right and it undermines democracy.

We need a constitutional amendment to get rid of this grossly unfair advantage that only people with access to large amounts of money have. It's anti-democratic.

dmarks: You can't censor corporations without censoring the individuals that make them up.

Of course you can.

dmarks: You support fascism, and only support fairness when you personally think something is fair..

YOU support fascism, as you support giving a grossly unfair advantage to those with more money. Fascism/plutocracy is all about letting those with the most money have the power.

dmarks: Your fascistic requirement that government control and limit political expression is right out of Red China, and directly guts the First Amendment.

That's complete nonsense. I said both sides (or actually, ALL sides) should be allowed equal opportunity to make their case. In Red China only one side is allowed to do this. And they kill/imprison you if you disagree.

My way is the most democratic. Your's is the most fascistic.

dmarks: As for democracy, that is for running government... Guests in a place have the right to vote with their feet.

Shareholders are owners, not "guests".

dmarks: That's a real stupid idea [that owners of a company should be able to vote on political contributions].

It's an awesome idea. It puts the owners in charge, as they should be.

dmarks: Grow up and learn some tolerance.

I am extremely tolerant. Except for those who advocate that their side receive an unfair advantage... just because they have more money. I have no tolerance for these fascists. The US is a democracy. If you don't like it, leave. Stop trying to fundamentally transform the country I love.

dmarks: Why the hell should a job be a "union job"?

Because the workers voted for the union. Unions can also be decertified if the workers want that. I support this choice.

dmarks: Yet you demand this. You oppose workers rights to choice.

I demand that the workers be allowed to chose if they want a union or not. dmarks, a person who doesn't know these workers or their lives, should not be allowed to arrogantly chose for them.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I defy you to come up with any stats that more than 50% of American workers are involved in unions.

I think dmarks is losing it. He thinks that if a worker hasn't joined a union it's because he doesn't want to. Even if joining a union isn't an option where he works.

From the NYT: "...polling has shown that a majority of nonunion workers would like to join a union if they could."

The reason why more workers don't attempt to unionize... "Firing someone for trying to organize a union is technically illegal under the 1935 act, but there are powerful incentives for corporations to violate this right, in part because the penalties -- mitigated back pay after extended hearings -- are so weak".

Companies bully and fire workers who try to unionize. That is why union membership is down. You're wrong that most workers say "union no". Most workers would join a union if they could.

dmarks: Actually, it is because the overwhelming majority of workers want nothing to do with unions.

The overwhelming majority of workers would jump at the chance to join a union.

dmarks: Finally, on this, I side with the workers... And I always take the workers' side in worker-vs-union struggles (such as right-to-work).

You side with the wealthy elites. Unions fight for worker's rights and fairer pay and if you side against unions you're siding against workers.

And "right to work" (for less) isn't worker-vs-union, it's plutocrat-vs-worker. "Right to work" is a way to weaken unions.

dmarks said...

WD said; "He thinks that if a worker hasn't joined a union it's because he doesn't want to."

Nothing is stopping anyone from cutting a check for as much money to as many unions as possible.

"polling has shown that a majority of nonunion workers would like to join a union if they could"

I wonder how accurate the polling and questions were? I'm sure a lot of people would want to join unions if they were free.

"The overwhelming majority of workers would jump at the chance to join a union."

Yet, when given a chance, coerced union members (in against their will) jump AWAY from the union. The Teamsters officials in Indiana say they expect at least half of the workers to quit the union now that they no longer have to belong.

"You side with the wealthy elites."

That's a nonsequitur. Like saying that I fight for giraffes. Because all along here we have been talking about the rights of workers who don't want to in unions. Few of these are wealthy elites.

"Unions fight for worker's rights"

Only for those workers that the union acts in the interest of. Not for the 30% to 60% in the union against their will.

"if you side against unions you're siding against workers."

Actually, I am siding with the 30% to 60% of union members who oppose the union.

"And "right to work" (for less) isn't worker-vs-union"

It sure is, as the unions consistently come down against the workers on this issue.

""Right to work" is a way to weaken unions"

Only if it is a union workers don't like. A union which acts in the interest of its members will keep all its members under "right to work". A union that is disconnected with its membership will lose members.

It is really a way to strengthen workers.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, I said that Mr. Walker's tax-cuts were absolutely a debatable point. That isn't the issue. The issue here is being honest/journalistic ethics.

w-dervish said...

Now for the final dmarks' pack of lies (part 1):

dmarks: You should, because I am being factual.

How arrogant of dmarks -- his opinions are "factual".

dmarks: No, I oppose unions because unions force their workers to give money to Democrats, even if the workers oppose this.

Baloney. The leadership decides (or the workers vote) on who to support politically. If the workers disagree they can elect different leadership.

dmarks: I don't support efforts to bust unions. You have me confused with someone else. This is easy.. Next

I'm not confused at all. You're a HUGE supporter of union busting. Walker in WI did it and you applauded him. You said his busting of the teachers union was him giving them a "raise".

dmarks: That's bullcrap. That is like a homeowner requiring consent of someone who bought a lamp at a garage sale in order to use some of the money to give to Obama. You are comparing apples and oranges.

That's bullcrap. A stockholder isn't like someone buying a lamp at a garage sale. A stockholder is an OWNER, not a customer.

dmarks: No one is forced to become a stockholder. Workers are usually forced to join unions.

Yes, they aren't forced to buy the stock, but you think it's OK if the board of directors uses the company's money on political activities WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNERS!

That would be like if you and I owned a company, me providing 80 percent of the money and you 20 percent. Then we decide you should be CEO. Later you tell me you're donating some of our profits to Romney's Super PAC. I say I don't want to... and you tell me to go to hell.

w-dervish said...

Now for the final dmarks' pack of lies (part 2):

dmarks: I am aware of the First Amendment. You are not. There's nothing in it to enable censorship if some close-minded pinhead doesn't like what is being said. Under freedom of speech, the close-minded pinheads just ignore it.

I am aware that the First Amendment protects individual free speech rights. Corporations don't have free speech rights under the First Amendment. You are ignorant of this.

dmarks: I've never done this. However, I have called you arrogant (and quite accurately) a fascist because you want the ruling elites to censor advertising.

I think all candidates for political office should have an equal opportunity to present their ideas. You quite innaccurately call me "arrogant" and a "fascist" because I disagree with your fascistic idea that those with the most money should have the most free speech.

dmarks: So? If you don't like it, sit down and shut up. Obama outspent McCain by a huge margin. And had more ads. I didn't agree with the ads. But want to know what I did? Nothing. Unlike you, I respect the right of those with differing opinions to speak out.

I don't respect those with more money to be able to buy more free speech. It's anti-democratic. And advertising is a highly effective tool to sway public opinion. The campaigns hire specialists in manipulating people's emotions.

dmarks: Wow. That's what happens in a free and open society!

Yes, but you want to give some people (those with more money) a greater opportunity to do it (sway public opinion).

dmarks: Here your arrogance comes into play again. These voters disagree with you. I trust them. not a know-nothing who only knows his own life not those of others.

My "arrogance" has nothing to do with it. Advertising (propaganda) works. It's scientifically proven. Haven't you ever heard of Frank Luntz? He's a sleazeball employed by Republicans to manipulate voters by causing them to "react based on emotion". As for the "know nothing", that would be you.

dmarks: The voters disagree. I trust them, not you.

You trust that the Republicans will be able to manipulate the voters due to their money advantage (and the more "free speech" that money buys them).

dmarks: yes, we know you are a super-arrogant a-hole who thinks that the 90% of Americans who disagree with you are all fools.

90 percent Americans don't disagree with me. You just pulled that figure out of your ass. And I'm not arrogant at all. I just believe in fairness. All candidates should have an equal chance for their message to be heard (democracy). You disagree... and believe those with the most money should have the advantage (plutocracy).

dmarks said...

"90 percent Americans don't disagree with me."

Pretty close to that, actually. The hard "progressive" wing of the Left onl

"And I'm not arrogant at all."

You believe your way is the best for all, and your personal ideas of what is "fair" should be forced on everyone.

"I just believe in fairness."

Your personal idea of fair, forced on everyone. That "forcing" is what makes it arrogant.

"All candidates should have an equal chance for their message to be heard (democracy)."

To put this into place, you require fascism. Your idea negates the First Amendment, which does not include the government regulating as you demand. In fact, the Amendment prohibits it.

"You disagree... and believe those with the most money should have the advantage (plutocracy)."

This is not my belief at all.

dmarks said...

WD said: "I am aware that the First Amendment protects individual free speech rights. Corporations don't have free speech rights under the First Amendment. You are ignorant of this."

I know. Individuals do. Even if they belong to corporations.

You are the ignorant one, as you favor such things as "Move to Amend", which censors individuals if they belong to organizations the government does not approve if.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: This is not my belief at all.

You lie. You've been arguing for it in EVERY ONE of your comments in this thread.

And you are correct that "Move to Amend" has my support. But they do NOT want to censor indididuals if they belong to organizations the government does not approve if. That's a lie.

dmarks said...

"But they do NOT want to censor indididuals if they belong to organizations the government does not approve if."

It's true, actually. That is their main goal. I have read proclamations by Move to Amend groups about the need to censor advertising that involves political topics.

w-dervish said...

Repealing the First Amendment is not their goal, main or secondary. What you said is false.

Their goal is to get rid of the extra free speech rights corporations and wealthy people now have by being able to spend unlimited money and "speak" louder than others.

The Supreme Court took the Declaration of Independence and struck out the words "All Men Are Created Equal" when they ruled in the Citizens United case. Their decision created "super citizens" that have free speech rights greater than the average citizen. It's anti-democratic.

There is nothing wrong with reasonable campaign finance laws... unless you favor plutocracy (like dmarks).

dmarks said...

"Repealing the First Amendment is not their goal, main or secondary. What you said is false."

What I said was true. Time and again, you have called for gagging and censoring and punishing individuals for the following reasons:

1) Individuals using political speech that you do not deem 'fair'.

2) The individuals criticizing those in power happen to belong to organizations you do not like.

3) The individuals you are censoring happen to have more money than some others.

4) The individuals you are censoring are people you dislike, and if they happen to speak in more than "equal" proportion to those you like.

5) The individuals you wish to censor are, according to you "plutocrats", which is a vague insult and not a Constitutional concept at all.

6) The individuals speaking out that you want censored are not members of a narrowly defined "press".

7) The individuals you want censored might, through the effectiveness of their speech, might convince others of their views.


There, I think I covered all of the various demands for censorship that you have made.

----
Now, on to your recent comment:

"Their goal is to get rid of the extra free speech rights corporations and wealthy people now have by being able to spend unlimited money and "speak" louder than others."

You make it quite clear that you want to get rid of free speech rights. The word "Extra" can be factored out, since the First Amendment does not allow censoring 'extra' speech.

And by going on to advocate censoring individuals who belong to corporations, you hit WD Censorship Target #2, followed by #3. How predictable.

"The Supreme Court took the Declaration of Independence and struck out the words "All Men Are Created Equal" when they ruled in the Citizens United case."

No, they did not. You can't find where they did.

In actuality, what you complain about has to do with how the Bill of Rights was written. The First Amendment makes absolutely no exceptions for reasons #1 through #7.

"There is nothing wrong with reasonable campaign finance laws."

This is actually an issue not related to campaign finance. It involves outsiders speaking out on important issues: individuals outside of campaigns.

I oppose censorship for each and every one of the reasons #1 through #7 which you have demanded. This is because I am Constitutionally literate, and I recognize the fact that it is a lot more dangerous and damaging to a free society for government to censor speech than it is for government to allow too much"("extra") speech..

Finally, on this one, you mention "unless you favor plutocracy (like dmarks)."

Sorry, this is irrelevant. This reason for censorship you demand is entirely inconsistent with the law of the land.

dmarks said...

I missed this one.

"Their decision created "super citizens" that have free speech rights greater than the average citizen. It's anti-democratic."

You have a total misunderstanding of the term "democracy". Free speech is a private matter...expressly proclaimed in the First Amendment. It is a right held by the people. As such, it has nothing to do with democracy. It is not pro- or anti- democracy, any more than eating an apple is pro- or anti- democracy.