Michigan about to be lost to republicans for a generation

[Dick Tuck]

All this law does is reinforces the choice you just suggested.

again, why do you need to legislate this? why do you feel the need to pass laws targeted specifically at unions? do you see similar legislation from the left trying to do the exact opposite? you conservative claim to be about small government, then do the exact opposite. ignorant hypocrite.

Because unions abused the system. Reap what you sowed.

That ranks up there with one of the most childish, pathetic arguements even on this board.

 

[Avatar4321]

again, why do you need to legislate this? why do you feel the need to pass laws targeted specifically at unions? do you see similar legislation from the left trying to do the exact opposite? you conservative claim to be about small government, then do the exact opposite. ignorant hypocrite.

Because unions abused the system. Reap what you sowed.

That ranks up there with one of the most childish, pathetic arguements even on this board.

So we should accept the corruption of our government and unions because you think the other persons argument is pathetic?

Very persuasive.

 

[saveliberty]

again, why do you need to legislate this? why do you feel the need to pass laws targeted specifically at unions? do you see similar legislation from the left trying to do the exact opposite? you conservative claim to be about small government, then do the exact opposite. ignorant hypocrite.

Because unions abused the system. Reap what you sowed.

That ranks up there with one of the most childish, pathetic arguements even on this board.

Coming from one of the most childish pathetic people on the board, I am unmoved.

 

[daveman]

if what your claiming is true, then why does the right feel the need to legislate them out? apparently they scared of something. would that something be workers rights and higher wages for the middle class?

can you finally add something intelligent to the conversation? or are you just gonna continue to be a giant douche?

The right is pro-freedom. The left is anti-freedom. You know how you can tell? You legislate against freedom all the time.

its funny you say that, because the right consistently tries to take away freedoms. the right is trying to legislate the right for same sex couples to get married, they are trying to legislate away the right to not believe in religion by forcing prayer in school, legislate a woman's right to have an abortion, legislate that women who want to have an abortion go through personally violating procedures prior to doing so. you feel the need to legislate the rules between an employer and a union. you may say you believe in a small and unobtrusive government, but in practice you support big government intervention when it suits your personal beliefs and needs.

You're operating under a number of mistaken beliefs.

No one is trying to force prayer in school -- i.e., making every student pray regardless of his/her beliefs. We'd like for every student to be able to pray if they wish without the left removing that freedom.

No one is trying to outlaw atheism. I don't know where you got that ridiculous idea, but it's stupid.

You seem to think that a vaginal ultrasound is somehow more invasive than a D&C. Again, a stupid idea. The idea behind the ultrasound is to remind the woman that there is a human being inside her that she's about to throw away. Pro-aborts absolutely HATE that idea. It interferes with their "glob of goo" meme. You support a woman's right to choose as long as she chooses abortion.

Unions? As this thread is about, the right supports a worker's freedom to join a union or not. You oppose that freedom.

Gay marriage? Out of all your nonsense, you have one valid point. But you didn't give Obama any shit when he opposed it, did you?

The rest is horseshit.

 

[daveman]

we are not proposing that all shops become union shops. the employer has always had the opportunity on whether it has to accept becoming a union shop or not. is this lost on you? are you really that dumb that you dont understand this?

are the dems proposing legislation forcing employers to become unions?
however can the same can not be said about the right?

Just totally giving up on capital letters huh? Tell more lies, as if telling the truth was even a possibility with you.

point to a single piece of legislation proposed by the left that will force all employers to become union shops?

until you answer this simple question, your are officially both irrelevant and ignorant.

Strawman. That's all you've got.

 

[daveman]

I have some thoughts on that.

They hate freedom because there's the possibility that people will not choose to support the left's agenda. And if there's anything the left loves, it's power. So, people must be prevented from making the wrong choice by having the correct leftist-approved choice mandated by threat of government force. It's happened time and again throughout history, and there's nothing in the current crop of progs to suggest anything will be different.

But if power is all they want, they could easily just decide to give the people what they want rather than force people to their will.

More to it than that.

They really do believe they're better suited to dictate people's decisions than the people themselves. How many times have you seen someone you couldn't trust to tie his own shoes correctly telling you you're voting against your own interests?

No, the proles need someone to do their thinking for them. And leftists have appointed themselves to that role.

Unfortunately, they're simply not equipped for it.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The right is pro-freedom. The left is anti-freedom. You know how you can tell? You legislate against freedom all the time.

its funny you say that, because the right consistently tries to take away freedoms. the right is trying to legislate the right for same sex couples to get married, they are trying to legislate away the right to not believe in religion by forcing prayer in school, legislate a woman's right to have an abortion, legislate that women who want to have an abortion go through personally violating procedures prior to doing so. you feel the need to legislate the rules between an employer and a union. you may say you believe in a small and unobtrusive government, but in practice you support big government intervention when it suits your personal beliefs and needs.

You're operating under a number of mistaken beliefs.

No one is trying to force prayer in school -- i.e., making every student pray regardless of his/her beliefs. We'd like for every student to be able to pray if they wish without the left removing that freedom. there are many states trying to legislate prayer back into school. Paul Ryan Supports Prayer in Public Schools: ‘A Constitutional Issue of the States’ | TheBlaze.com

No one is trying to outlaw atheism. I don't know where you got that ridiculous idea, but it's stupid. where did i make this claim?

You seem to think that a vaginal ultrasound is somehow more invasive than a D&C. Again, a stupid idea. The idea behind the ultrasound is to remind the woman that there is a human being inside her that she's about to throw away. Pro-aborts absolutely HATE that idea. It interferes with their "glob of goo" meme. You support a woman's right to choose as long as she chooses abortion. why does a woman need to be told by anyone, especially the state anything about her body and her choices? and you confuse pro-abortion with pro-choice. pro-choice meaning that the decision to have an abortion rests solely with the woman and no one else.

Unions? As this thread is about, the right supports a worker's freedom to join a union or not. You oppose that freedom. a worker has always had the choice whether to join a union or not. there is no law on the books that forces any worker to accept any job. however the right feels the need to pass legislation making it illegal for unions to collect dues as a requirement for membership. if you dont want to be part of a union, then dont accept that job.

Gay marriage? Out of all your nonsense, you have one valid point. But you didn't give Obama any shit when he opposed it, did you? actually i did. thanks for asking

The rest is horseshit.

nice fail...

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Just totally giving up on capital letters huh? Tell more lies, as if telling the truth was even a possibility with you.

point to a single piece of legislation proposed by the left that will force all employers to become union shops?

until you answer this simple question, your are officially both irrelevant and ignorant.

Strawman. That's all you've got.

answer the question instead of avoiding it.

 

[daveman]

Way to fuck up the quotes, dumbass.

its funny you say that, because the right consistently tries to take away freedoms. the right is trying to legislate the right for same sex couples to get married, they are trying to legislate away the right to not believe in religion by forcing prayer in school, legislate a woman's right to have an abortion, legislate that women who want to have an abortion go through personally violating procedures prior to doing so. you feel the need to legislate the rules between an employer and a union. you may say you believe in a small and unobtrusive government, but in practice you support big government intervention when it suits your personal beliefs and needs.

You're operating under a number of mistaken beliefs.

No one is trying to force prayer in school -- i.e., making every student pray regardless of his/her beliefs. We'd like for every student to be able to pray if they wish without the left removing that freedom. there are many states trying to legislate prayer back into school. Paul Ryan Supports Prayer in Public Schools: ‘A Constitutional Issue of the States’ | TheBlaze.com

Didn't read the story, did you?

"Asked by a volunteer whether he supported giving states the right to allow 'prayer or pledge' in schools, Ryan said he did."

Key word: "Allow".

Nothing in there about forcing students to pray when they don't wish to, genius.

No one is trying to outlaw atheism. I don't know where you got that ridiculous idea, but it's stupid. where did i make this claim?

My bad. You were talking about forcing prayer in school (which claim you have failed to support, as I just showed).

You seem to think that a vaginal ultrasound is somehow more invasive than a D&C. Again, a stupid idea. The idea behind the ultrasound is to remind the woman that there is a human being inside her that she's about to throw away. Pro-aborts absolutely HATE that idea. It interferes with their "glob of goo" meme. You support a woman's right to choose as long as she chooses abortion. why does a woman need to be told by anyone, especially the state anything about her body and her choices? and you confuse pro-abortion with pro-choice. pro-choice meaning that the decision to have an abortion rests solely with the woman and no one else.

You simply can't comprehend that the right sees the fetus as a human being, deserving of protection.

That's not my problem. It's yours.

Unions? As this thread is about, the right supports a worker's freedom to join a union or not. You oppose that freedom. a worker has always had the choice whether to join a union or not. there is no law on the books that forces any worker to accept any job. however the right feels the need to pass legislation making it illegal for unions to collect dues as a requirement for membership. if you dont want to be part of a union, then dont accept that job.

What if you want to be an electrician or a plumber in a union state?

You HAVE to join the union. You have no choice.

You oppose people's freedom to choose the career they want.

Gay marriage? Out of all your nonsense, you have one valid point. But you didn't give Obama any shit when he opposed it, did you? actually i did. thanks for asking

Doubtful.

The rest is horseshit.

nice fail...

Saying it doesn't make it so, Skippy.

 

[daveman]

point to a single piece of legislation proposed by the left that will force all employers to become union shops?

until you answer this simple question, your are officially both irrelevant and ignorant.

Strawman. That's all you've got.

answer the question instead of avoiding it.

If 51% of employees vote to unionize in a union state, the remaining 49% who didn't want to unionize are forced by law to join the union against their will, or else quit their jobs.

Your question is answered, and it reveals your hatred of freedom.

 

[lukelk]

Dont even bother with dave, he will never get it. He is the reason the republican party is now a total minority.

 

[Political Junky]

As the tittle says, this push by a minority to turn Michigan to a right to work state by holding closed doors meeting and other crazy stuff, the best part is its having a major effect, workers are now more united than ever, getting stronger. This will push Michigan into FIRM democrat control, the dems are now primed to take back pretty much every state branch of government. This is one of the best things that has happened in a long time. Oh and looks like Wisconsin is shifting too, hell Paul Ryan couldn't even win his home district in the 2012 election, gov. Walker is weaker than ever now, this is very awesome, it's destroying the republican party this this part of the country for a generation.

I hope so, and perhaps Snyder does too. He looked a little peaked on Morning Joe this AM.

 

[Avatar4321]

Dont even bother with dave, he will never get it. He is the reason the republican party is now a total minority.

Dave gets it quite well. Pretending he doesn't isn't going to make your thoughts any more pursuasive or correct.

 

[daveman]

Dont even bother with dave, he will never get it. He is the reason the republican party is now a total minority.

Your problem is I get it all too well.

I don't listen to what you say. I listen to what you mean. I watch what you do.

The last two are often at odds with the first.

 

[saveliberty]

point to a single piece of legislation proposed by the left that will force all employers to become union shops?

until you answer this simple question, your are officially both irrelevant and ignorant.

Strawman. That's all you've got.

answer the question instead of avoiding it.

You avoided my question. Btw, your question is worded wrong. It was meant to avoid having a reply that reports union shops EXCLUDE nonunion workers in the same classification of employment.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Strawman. That's all you've got.

answer the question instead of avoiding it.

If 51% of employees vote to unionize in a union state, the remaining 49% who didn't want to unionize are forced by law to join the union against their will, or else quit their jobs.

Your question is answered, and it reveals your hatred of freedom.

your answer doesnt address business that are already unionized, which is the point of this entire thread, nor does it point to specific legislation either on the table or on the books.

your example though would be the one case that someone could be forced to join a union, however they still do have a choice in the matter. no one is holding a gun to their head in order to stay with that employer. but then again this is not a piece of proposed legislation, or piece of legislation that is already on the books. your statement just clarifies what is already in the rules of unionization.

then again if you the worker are that against unions, it then becomes your job to convince your other coworkers of the same. however on average union workers make 27% more than non union workers.

its amazing that the right is so against higher wages for workers.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Strawman. That's all you've got.

answer the question instead of avoiding it.

You avoided my question. Btw, your question is worded wrong. It was meant to avoid having a reply that reports union shops EXCLUDE nonunion workers in the same classification of employment.

the question is fairly simple and straight forward, yet you will avoid it like the plague.

 

[saveliberty]

answer the question instead of avoiding it.

You avoided my question. Btw, your question is worded wrong. It was meant to avoid having a reply that reports union shops EXCLUDE nonunion workers in the same classification of employment.

the question is fairly simple and straight forward, yet you will avoid it like the plague.

Not all business have unions idiot. That is what your question stated. Care to try and make a coherent statement? My response above guts your whole premise.

 

[daveman]

answer the question instead of avoiding it.

If 51% of employees vote to unionize in a union state, the remaining 49% who didn't want to unionize are forced by law to join the union against their will, or else quit their jobs.

Your question is answered, and it reveals your hatred of freedom.

your answer doesnt address business that are already unionized, which is the point of this entire thread, nor does it point to specific legislation either on the table or on the books.

your example though would be the one case that someone could be forced to join a union, however they still do have a choice in the matter. no one is holding a gun to their head in order to stay with that employer. but then again this is not a piece of proposed legislation, or piece of legislation that is already on the books. your statement just clarifies what is already in the rules of unionization.

then again if you the worker are that against unions, it then becomes your job to convince your other coworkers of the same. however on average union workers make 27% more than non union workers.

its amazing that the right is so against higher wages for workers.

I want every individual to make the choice to join the union or not.

You want the majority of a company's employees to make that choice for the minority.

And you see nothing wrong with it.

 

[The Rabbi]

If 51% of employees vote to unionize in a union state, the remaining 49% who didn't want to unionize are forced by law to join the union against their will, or else quit their jobs.

Your question is answered, and it reveals your hatred of freedom.

your answer doesnt address business that are already unionized, which is the point of this entire thread, nor does it point to specific legislation either on the table or on the books.

your example though would be the one case that someone could be forced to join a union, however they still do have a choice in the matter. no one is holding a gun to their head in order to stay with that employer. but then again this is not a piece of proposed legislation, or piece of legislation that is already on the books. your statement just clarifies what is already in the rules of unionization.

then again if you the worker are that against unions, it then becomes your job to convince your other coworkers of the same. however on average union workers make 27% more than non union workers.

its amazing that the right is so against higher wages for workers.

I want every individual to make the choice to join the union or not.

You want the majority of a company's employees to make that choice for the minority.

And you see nothing wrong with it.

He's a prisoner of his own misinformation.