News flash: WAPO & Limbaugh agree! Forcing state unionization is bad.

[Foxfyre]

So here we go again.

It isn’t often that Rush Limbaugh and the Washington Post agree that a leftwing policy is a bad, deal but they’re agreeing on this.

What do you think? Do you see a problem with the Federal Government FORCING the states to let employees unionize in a one-size-fits-all manner? Ya’ll all okay with your state maybe raising taxes a whole big bunch to finance that?

Since everybody doesn’t have a WAPO subscription, I’ve pulled the excerpt of the Post editorial posted on the National Right to Work website.

Congress should let states handle their own labor relations

ALL ACROSS America, state and local governments are struggling with recession-induced budget crises as revenue has plummeted and demand for services has remained high. But the issue is not only cyclical. Many public employees have been promised pay, pensions and health benefits that tax bases cannot sustain even in good times. As a result, voters and political leaders of both parties are rethinking the costs and benefits of public-sector unionism.

Except in Congress, it seems. Senate Majority Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is pushing to federalize labor relations between state and local governments and some public-sector unions. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would require all states to give police and fire unions “adequate” collective bargaining rights — as determined by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. States deemed “inadequate” could wind up in federal court. Long sought by public-safety unions, the bill is supported not only by Mr. Reid but also by Republicans, including the soon-to-retire Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.). It has a good chance of passing if the Senate can fit it on its busy calendar.

What this bill would do is impose a permanent, one-size-fits-all federal solution in an area — public-sector labor relations — that has traditionally been left to the states, and where state flexibility is probably more necessary than ever. The imposition on Virginia would be dramatic, of course, but even union-friendly Maryland, which lets each county decide whether and how to bargain with its employees, might find itself in costly, time-consuming contention with the feds. Farther afield, Colorado’s “fire protection districts,” special units of government dedicated to providing that service, would face costly collective bargaining even where firefighters and management are working harmoniously without it.
Washington Post: Police Fire Federal Forced Unionism “A Bad Idea”

Rush focuses on ‘moronic Republicans’ who support this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29DuD5LlJ2E]YouTube - Rush Limbaugh Blasts "Moronic Republicans" Support of Forced Unionism Bills[/ame]

 

[jillian]

where is the actual 'editorial'?

i'm afraid i'll pass on the spin given by the 'national right to work' committee.

 

[Foxfyre]

where is the actual 'editorial'?

i'm afraid i'll pass on the spin given by the 'national right to work' committee.

What I posted IS the editorial, or at least as much of it as they posted.

I'll see if it's still available on the WAPO site though because I do have a subscription.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, here's the link to the Post which is identical to what I posted. I can't post any more of it though without violating USMB's copyright policy, so those who aren't subscribers may have to register. Or possibly not.

washingtonpost.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is nothing more than the Democrats paying of the corporations who own them, unions.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is nothing more than the Democrats paying of the corporations who own them, unions.

So what do you think? Good thing? Bad thing?

Is it worth keeping score about when it comes time to vote in November?

 

[edthecynic]

This is nothing more than the Democrats paying of the corporations who own them, unions.

So what do you think? Good thing? Bad thing?

Is it worth keeping score about when it comes time to vote in November?

I think you have to be beyond stupid to swallow the BS Stuttering Limptard feeds you.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is nothing more than the Democrats paying of the corporations who own them, unions.

So what do you think? Good thing? Bad thing?

Is it worth keeping score about when it comes time to vote in November?

I think you have to be beyond stupid to swallow the BS Stuttering Limptard feeds you.

I think you have to be beyond stupid to think Limbaugh is 'feeding us anything', especially when he and the Washington Post are on the same page. You probably missed the part that he was most upset that six Republicans were supporting this policy.

Or do you feel anybody is beyond stupid to read the Washington Post?

If so, what do you consider a reliable source to go to for your news? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[edthecynic]

So what do you think? Good thing? Bad thing?

Is it worth keeping score about when it comes time to vote in November?

I think you have to be beyond stupid to swallow the BS Stuttering Limptard feeds you.

I think you have to be beyond stupid to think Limbaugh is 'feeding us anything', especially when he and the Washington Post are on the same page. You probably missed the part that he was most upset that six Republicans were supporting this policy.

Or do you feel anybody is beyond stupid to read the Washington Post?

If so, what do you consider a reliable source to go to for your news? Inquiring minds want to know.

It is beyond stupid not to know that the Washington Post's Op-Ed and Editorial pages are extremely right leaning!!!

Pulsating diversity of views on the Post Op-Ed page - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

The Washington Post published a total of 8 Op-Eds and opinion columns today, from these individuals:

* Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey (bashing Obama for wanting to try 9/11 defendants in an actual court)

* Neocon Charles Krauthammer (heralding the resurgent GOP fueled by "Obama's hubristic expansion of government, taxation, spending and debt")

* Newt Gingrich and GOP Texas Gov. Rick Perry (Obama's health care plan would destroy America)

* Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson (Obama has lost the American center and his health care plan will destroy Democrats)

* Conservative economist Martin Feldstein, former chief economic adviser to Reagan ("Obamacare" will raise premiums and increase the number of uninsured)

* Honduran coup defender Edward Schumacher-Matos (blaming Honduras' democratically elected President for "instigating mob rule" and criticizing both the American Right and Left for "extremism," while defending the administration-backed compromise)

* CEO of BP (British Petroluem) Tony Hayward (dismissing efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption as "simplistic" and advocating changes to cap-and-trade bill that would benefit BP)

* Liberal Eugene Robinson (warning of the takeover of the GOP by the intolerant, ideological Right)

_____

So, to re-cap: The Post today has two former Bush officials, one former Reagan official, two right-wing politicians, a Fox News neocon, the CEO of America's largest oil and gas producer, a defender of the right-wing Honduran military coup leaders, and one liberal columnist. That overwhelming right-wing presence on the Post Op-Ed page is anything but unusual (the day after it fired Dan Froomkin, The Post published Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Hayden, Charles Krauthammer and an Iran-hawkish screed from David Ignatnius, preceded by Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Ramesh Ponnuru). And that's to say nothing of the always-pro-war Editorial Page itself, which typically advocates for those same positions.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you have to be beyond stupid to swallow the BS Stuttering Limptard feeds you.

I think you have to be beyond stupid to think Limbaugh is 'feeding us anything', especially when he and the Washington Post are on the same page. You probably missed the part that he was most upset that six Republicans were supporting this policy.

Or do you feel anybody is beyond stupid to read the Washington Post?

If so, what do you consider a reliable source to go to for your news? Inquiring minds want to know.

It is beyond stupid not to know that the Washington Post's Op-Ed and Editorial pages are extremely right leaning!!!

Pulsating diversity of views on the Post Op-Ed page - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

The Washington Post published a total of 8 Op-Eds and opinion columns today, from these individuals:

* Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey (bashing Obama for wanting to try 9/11 defendants in an actual court)

* Neocon Charles Krauthammer (heralding the resurgent GOP fueled by "Obama's hubristic expansion of government, taxation, spending and debt")

* Newt Gingrich and GOP Texas Gov. Rick Perry (Obama's health care plan would destroy America)

* Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson (Obama has lost the American center and his health care plan will destroy Democrats)

* Conservative economist Martin Feldstein, former chief economic adviser to Reagan ("Obamacare" will raise premiums and increase the number of uninsured)

* Honduran coup defender Edward Schumacher-Matos (blaming Honduras' democratically elected President for "instigating mob rule" and criticizing both the American Right and Left for "extremism," while defending the administration-backed compromise)

* CEO of BP (British Petroluem) Tony Hayward (dismissing efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption as "simplistic" and advocating changes to cap-and-trade bill that would benefit BP)

* Liberal Eugene Robinson (warning of the takeover of the GOP by the intolerant, ideological Right)

_____

So, to re-cap: The Post today has two former Bush officials, one former Reagan official, two right-wing politicians, a Fox News neocon, the CEO of America's largest oil and gas producer, a defender of the right-wing Honduran military coup leaders, and one liberal columnist. That overwhelming right-wing presence on the Post Op-Ed page is anything but unusual (the day after it fired Dan Froomkin, The Post published Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Hayden, Charles Krauthammer and an Iran-hawkish screed from David Ignatnius, preceded by Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Ramesh Ponnuru). And that's to say nothing of the always-pro-war Editorial Page itself, which typically advocates for those same positions.

And it would take somebody pretty ignorant to believe most of those headlines Salon featured are supportive of rightwing policies.

So again, if the Washington Post is a rabid rightwing publication, what DO you consider a reliable source for your news?

And how did you vote in the above poll?

 

[edthecynic]

I think you have to be beyond stupid to think Limbaugh is 'feeding us anything', especially when he and the Washington Post are on the same page. You probably missed the part that he was most upset that six Republicans were supporting this policy.

Or do you feel anybody is beyond stupid to read the Washington Post?

If so, what do you consider a reliable source to go to for your news? Inquiring minds want to know.

It is beyond stupid not to know that the Washington Post's Op-Ed and Editorial pages are extremely right leaning!!!

Pulsating diversity of views on the Post Op-Ed page - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

The Washington Post published a total of 8 Op-Eds and opinion columns today, from these individuals:

* Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey (bashing Obama for wanting to try 9/11 defendants in an actual court)

* Neocon Charles Krauthammer (heralding the resurgent GOP fueled by "Obama's hubristic expansion of government, taxation, spending and debt")

* Newt Gingrich and GOP Texas Gov. Rick Perry (Obama's health care plan would destroy America)

* Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson (Obama has lost the American center and his health care plan will destroy Democrats)

* Conservative economist Martin Feldstein, former chief economic adviser to Reagan ("Obamacare" will raise premiums and increase the number of uninsured)

* Honduran coup defender Edward Schumacher-Matos (blaming Honduras' democratically elected President for "instigating mob rule" and criticizing both the American Right and Left for "extremism," while defending the administration-backed compromise)

* CEO of BP (British Petroluem) Tony Hayward (dismissing efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption as "simplistic" and advocating changes to cap-and-trade bill that would benefit BP)

* Liberal Eugene Robinson (warning of the takeover of the GOP by the intolerant, ideological Right)

_____

So, to re-cap: The Post today has two former Bush officials, one former Reagan official, two right-wing politicians, a Fox News neocon, the CEO of America's largest oil and gas producer, a defender of the right-wing Honduran military coup leaders, and one liberal columnist. That overwhelming right-wing presence on the Post Op-Ed page is anything but unusual (the day after it fired Dan Froomkin, The Post published Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Hayden, Charles Krauthammer and an Iran-hawkish screed from David Ignatnius, preceded by Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Ramesh Ponnuru). And that's to say nothing of the always-pro-war Editorial Page itself, which typically advocates for those same positions.

And it would take somebody pretty ignorant to believe most of those headlines Salon featured are supportive of rightwing policies.

So again, if the Washington Post is a rabid rightwing publication, what DO you consider a reliable source for your news?

And how did you vote in the above poll?

You can't possibly be serious!
Well at least you said it with a smile.

I don't consider any corporate media reliable. I assume both sides are trying to manipulate me. I try to tease out the "germ of truth" from the half-truths each uses and I then consider what they both leave out and then draw my own conclusions.

As I have said many times, I see CON$ervative/Liberal and Republican/Democrat as the political equivalent of "Good Cop, Bad Cop."
That's why I'm a Cynic.
Get it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay Ed, so if we agree that at least for you, the Washington Post is far too rightwing to be a reliable source.....you'll have to focus now......

What do you consider reliable sources to go to for your news? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[edthecynic]

It is beyond stupid not to know that the Washington Post's Op-Ed and Editorial pages are extremely right leaning!!!

And it would take somebody pretty ignorant to believe most of those headlines Salon featured are supportive of rightwing policies.

So again, if the Washington Post is a rabid rightwing publication, what DO you consider a reliable source for your news?

And how did you vote in the above poll?

You can't possibly be serious!
Well at least you said it with a smile.

I don't consider any corporate media reliable. I assume both sides are trying to manipulate me. I try to tease out the "germ of truth" from the half-truths each uses and I then consider what they both leave out and then draw my own conclusions.

As I have said many times, I see CON$ervative/Liberal and Republican/Democrat as the political equivalent of "Good Cop, Bad Cop."
That's why I'm a Cynic.
Get it?

Okay Ed, so if we agree that at least for you, the Washington Post is far too rightwing to be a reliable source.....you'll have to focus now......

What do you consider reliable sources to go to for your news? Inquiring minds want to know.

You'll have to focus now..... As a Cynic I don't consider any news source reliable.

How many times do I have to repeat it before you FOCUS on it?

 

[Foxfyre]

And it would take somebody pretty ignorant to believe most of those headlines Salon featured are supportive of rightwing policies.

So again, if the Washington Post is a rabid rightwing publication, what DO you consider a reliable source for your news?

And how did you vote in the above poll?

You can't possibly be serious!
Well at least you said it with a smile.

I don't consider any corporate media reliable. I assume both sides are trying to manipulate me. I try to tease out the "germ of truth" from the half-truths each uses and I then consider what they both leave out and then draw my own conclusions.

As I have said many times, I see CON$ervative/Liberal and Republican/Democrat as the political equivalent of "Good Cop, Bad Cop."
That's why I'm a Cynic.
Get it?

Okay Ed, so if we agree that at least for you, the Washington Post is far too rightwing to be a reliable source.....you'll have to focus now......

What do you consider reliable sources to go to for your news? Inquiring minds want to know.

You'll have to focus now..... As a Cynic I don't consider any news source reliable.

How many times do I have to repeat it before you FOCUS on it?

So news sources are out. No sources at all? Your insights come to you in a dream? From outer space? Transmitted from a genie in a bottle? What?

 

[edthecynic]

You can't possibly be serious!
Well at least you said it with a smile.

I don't consider any corporate media reliable. I assume both sides are trying to manipulate me. I try to tease out the "germ of truth" from the half-truths each uses and I then consider what they both leave out and then draw my own conclusions.

As I have said many times, I see CON$ervative/Liberal and Republican/Democrat as the political equivalent of "Good Cop, Bad Cop."
That's why I'm a Cynic.
Get it?

Okay Ed, so if we agree that at least for you, the Washington Post is far too rightwing to be a reliable source.....you'll have to focus now......

What do you consider reliable sources to go to for your news? Inquiring minds want to know.

You'll have to focus now..... As a Cynic I don't consider any news source reliable.

How many times do I have to repeat it before you FOCUS on it?

So news sources are out. No sources at all? Your insights come to you in a dream? From outer space? Transmitted from a genie in a bottle? What?

Dang, you are thick.
How big and colorful do I have to make it for you to FOCUS on?????

 

[Foxfyre]

You'll have to focus now..... As a Cynic I don't consider any news source reliable.

How many times do I have to repeat it before you FOCUS on it?

So news sources are out. No sources at all? Your insights come to you in a dream? From outer space? Transmitted from a genie in a bottle? What?

Dang, you are thick.
How big and colorful do I have to make it for you to FOCUS on?????

Sorry I did miss that. But okay. You pick and choose what you like from whatever media and make up the rest. And you call that being a cynic. Got it.

 

[edthecynic]

So news sources are out. No sources at all? Your insights come to you in a dream? From outer space? Transmitted from a genie in a bottle? What?

Dang, you are thick.
How big and colorful do I have to make it for you to FOCUS on?????

Sorry I did miss that. But okay. You pick and choose what you like from whatever media and make up the rest. And you call that being a cynic. Got it.

You made that up! Typical CON$ervative projection.
You got nothing!

Being a Cynic, I do not trust any media to tell the WHOLE truth, so I pay particular attention to what they leave out because many times that is more revealing than the part of the truth they give.
You are obviously gullible enough to believe one side or the other tells the whole truth, that's why they are able to make a sucker out of you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh well. Nobody's perfect.