Why Conservatives hate...

[☭proletarian☭]

Because they make it more difficult for business to do business and by in large isn't neccessary.

No? Do you realize how things were before the unions existed?

Do you realize how things were before the internal combustion engine? But despite all the good that has been accomplished, should we not require a reasonable standard of safety in their use? And take the unsafe apparatus off the road or out of the system?

Do you realize how things were before electricity was harnessed? But shall we do away with the U.L. certification or not warn people in the proper and safe use of electrical apparatus? Shall we leave unsafe wiring in place or demand that it be replaced or fixed?

Do you realize how things were before the American Revolution? But do you now think that everything every politician has done and all government policy and intiatives are wonderful or even honest and ethical? Because so much good has been done do we then just ignore the bad, the corrupt, the damaging, the dishonest, the unethical?

Do you honestly think that because unions have done some good in the past and/or the present that all unions now have the health and welfare of business in mind and/or they are noble institutions? That they operate honestly and ethically? That there is no downside? That there should be no interest in the harm that they do or can do?

I addressed this some time ago. Go read.

 

[Foxfyre]

No? Do you realize how things were before the unions existed?

Do you realize how things were before the internal combustion engine? But despite all the good that has been accomplished, should we not require a reasonable standard of safety in their use? And take the unsafe apparatus off the road or out of the system?

Do you realize how things were before electricity was harnessed? But shall we do away with the U.L. certification or not warn people in the proper and safe use of electrical apparatus? Shall we leave unsafe wiring in place or demand that it be replaced or fixed?

Do you realize how things were before the American Revolution? But do you now think that everything every politician has done and all government policy and intiatives are wonderful or even honest and ethical? Because so much good has been done do we then just ignore the bad, the corrupt, the damaging, the dishonest, the unethical?

Do you honestly think that because unions have done some good in the past and/or the present that all unions now have the health and welfare of business in mind and/or they are noble institutions? That they operate honestly and ethically? That there is no downside? That there should be no interest in the harm that they do or can do?

I addressed this some time ago. Go read.

I don't have to because every illustration I used is valid and I believe would be agreed to by all intelligent and educated people. If you say or said otherwise, then you're an idiot. Since I don't believe you're an idiot, I have to believe that you do agree with every one of those statements. You may not be WILLING to admit that you agree because then you would have to agree that some unions do not operate in the best interest of anybody other than those in power in the unions.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Do you realize how things were before the internal combustion engine? But despite all the good that has been accomplished, should we not require a reasonable standard of safety in their use? And take the unsafe apparatus off the road or out of the system?

Do you realize how things were before electricity was harnessed? But shall we do away with the U.L. certification or not warn people in the proper and safe use of electrical apparatus? Shall we leave unsafe wiring in place or demand that it be replaced or fixed?

Do you realize how things were before the American Revolution? But do you now think that everything every politician has done and all government policy and intiatives are wonderful or even honest and ethical? Because so much good has been done do we then just ignore the bad, the corrupt, the damaging, the dishonest, the unethical?

Do you honestly think that because unions have done some good in the past and/or the present that all unions now have the health and welfare of business in mind and/or they are noble institutions? That they operate honestly and ethically? That there is no downside? That there should be no interest in the harm that they do or can do?

I addressed this some time ago. Go read.

I don't have to because every illustration I used is valid and I believe would be agreed to by all intelligent and educated people. If you say or said otherwise, then you're an idiot. Since I don't believe you're an idiot, I have to believe that you do agree with every one of those statements. You may not be WILLING to admit that you agree because then you would have to agree that some unions do not operate in the best interest of anybody other than those in power in the unions.

I went on some time ago about how the unions got greedy

 

[Foxfyre]

Do I think unions are perfect? Of course not. But it's not their job to fight for the health and welfare of the business - it's their job to fight for the health and welfare of the workers. Businesses can fight for their own welfare.

Union involvement in politics is a counter-balance to business involvement in politics. If money = speech for corporations (like the SOTUS just ruled), why shouldn't it be the same for unions?

The right to free speech requires no contribution from anybody else. It only requires their noninterference. I have no problem with unions lobbying for legislation that they want to see happen. I have a huge problem with unions getting deals or contracts or anything else from the government that nonunion people are not allowed to get.

The union corruption of which I speak requires HUGE contributions from others; and, when unions are afforded special privileges, dispensations, and payola from the public treasury, that requires what I believe to be an unconstitutional contribution from me.

When the government gives unions a free pass on the ramifications of a massive universal healthcare bill, that can affect the taxes that I pay and/or the cost of healthcare products that I will be required to purchase. And that, I believe, also requires an unconstitutional contribution from me and you and everybody else, and is just plain wrong.

So, you have no problems with unions lobbying - you only have a problem when they get what they want?

I don't agree with the healthcare plan, nor do I agree with the union deal for it. But to claim that this is any different from what corporate lobbyists do is pure naivete.

How do you think that companies get no-bid contracts? Or why environmental restrictions get rolled back?

The same way unions got their deal for the healthcare plan.

If you're going to be ok with one side, you have to be ok with both.

Perhaps you can point me to a post of mine in which I even hinted that there is any difference between unions getting government favors and corporations (or individuals or groups or anybody) getting government favors?

And until you do--good luck with that because you won't find one--perhaps you would care to withdraw your straw man and focus on the principle stated about unions.

 

[Foxfyre]

I went on some time ago about how the unions got greedy

It is far more insidious than simple 'greed'. I don't have any problem with 'greed' per se. The entire free market system is built on it and it provides the impetus for a rising tide that raises all untethered boats.

My problem is not that unions try to get as much as they can get for their workers. My problem is with a government that aids and abets them, protects them, gives them unfair advantage over free market principles, and helps them strengthen their position to the detriment of both the worker and the employer. My problem is with union bosses that no longer even care about the worker or the employer or the community or America but are using the system to increase, strong arm, or otherwise increase their personal power, prestige, and fortune.

I have problems with elected officials from the local councilman to the Congress to the President when they operate in the same corrupt and destructive manner.

 

[Rambunctious]

Only a Liberal prick like Dante would post the non thinking shallow crap he places on this board.

douchebagh says what?

Douchebag???? Dante, tsk tsk, your showing your age.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The right to free speech requires no contribution from anybody else. It only requires their noninterference. I have no problem with unions lobbying for legislation that they want to see happen. I have a huge problem with unions getting deals or contracts or anything else from the government that nonunion people are not allowed to get.

The union corruption of which I speak requires HUGE contributions from others; and, when unions are afforded special privileges, dispensations, and payola from the public treasury, that requires what I believe to be an unconstitutional contribution from me.

When the government gives unions a free pass on the ramifications of a massive universal healthcare bill, that can affect the taxes that I pay and/or the cost of healthcare products that I will be required to purchase. And that, I believe, also requires an unconstitutional contribution from me and you and everybody else, and is just plain wrong.

So, you have no problems with unions lobbying - you only have a problem when they get what they want?

I don't agree with the healthcare plan, nor do I agree with the union deal for it. But to claim that this is any different from what corporate lobbyists do is pure naivete.

How do you think that companies get no-bid contracts? Or why environmental restrictions get rolled back?

The same way unions got their deal for the healthcare plan.

If you're going to be ok with one side, you have to be ok with both.

Perhaps you can point me to a post of mine in which I even hinted that there is any difference between unions getting government favors and corporations (or individuals or groups or anybody) getting government favors?

And until you do--good luck with that because you won't find one--perhaps you would care to withdraw your straw man and focus on the principle stated about unions.

Point conceded. I'm glad that you don't see a difference - and I apologize for making my point in a way that implied you did. My point was that while one exists, they both should - if for no other reason than to even things out - and I don't see any possibility of corporations losing their power. Or unions, for that matter.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Conservatives have every right AND every justificiation to oppose organized labor that is in bed with government, that receives special deals and dispensation from our elected representatives, that create crises that prompts their buddies in Washington to funnel the people's money to resolve, that forces closure or downscaling of businesses and costs jobs or drives them overseas.

All organized labor isn't bad and some do provide a useful service to the workers they serve, the employers, and their communities as a whole. And some are so corrupt and so detrimental to the workers, the employers, and the community as a whole, they should be shut down.

Just one example: Obama's/Congress's promise to the unions that if they support Obamacare, they will be exempt from prescribed taxes/penalities and won't be affected in any way.

That's just wrong.

also the deal the state unions made here in Ca...nice....

 

[Darkwind]

Why are reactionaries allowed to hide behind the label "conservative"?

Newt Gingrich once bragged about being reactionary.

go figure

Many people who were pioneers in freedom thought they were reactionaries.

You act as if it is a bad thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, you have no problems with unions lobbying - you only have a problem when they get what they want?

I don't agree with the healthcare plan, nor do I agree with the union deal for it. But to claim that this is any different from what corporate lobbyists do is pure naivete.

How do you think that companies get no-bid contracts? Or why environmental restrictions get rolled back?

The same way unions got their deal for the healthcare plan.

If you're going to be ok with one side, you have to be ok with both.

Perhaps you can point me to a post of mine in which I even hinted that there is any difference between unions getting government favors and corporations (or individuals or groups or anybody) getting government favors?

And until you do--good luck with that because you won't find one--perhaps you would care to withdraw your straw man and focus on the principle stated about unions.

Point conceded. I'm glad that you don't see a difference - and I apologize for making my point in a way that implied you did. My point was that while one exists, they both should - if for no other reason than to even things out - and I don't see any possibility of corporations losing their power. Or unions, for that matter.

No problem. And thanks. I appreciate that you didn't intend to misrepresent my point.

I don't think either unions nor corporations nor any other citizens should lose their power to lobby. The right to petition our government is a fundamental Constitutional right.

But given the fact that we no longer seem to be able to find uncorruptable people to lead us, I want to see us change the system so that lobbyists lose the power to buy influence. All that needs to happen there is for members of Congress, their staffs, and the Administration to be forbidden to pass legislation or use the people's money to grant material favors that benefit any individual, entity, group or whatever without benefitting all. In other words if Congress makes a sweetheart deal with the unions, everybody gets the deal, etc.

Not only would that eliminate a whole bunch of corruption and graft in government, but it would go a long way toward helping us regain fiscal accountability and responsibility.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives have every right AND every justificiation to oppose organized labor that is in bed with government, that receives special deals and dispensation from our elected representatives, that create crises that prompts their buddies in Washington to funnel the people's money to resolve, that forces closure or downscaling of businesses and costs jobs or drives them overseas.

All organized labor isn't bad and some do provide a useful service to the workers they serve, the employers, and their communities as a whole. And some are so corrupt and so detrimental to the workers, the employers, and the community as a whole, they should be shut down.

Just one example: Obama's/Congress's promise to the unions that if they support Obamacare, they will be exempt from prescribed taxes/penalities and won't be affected in any way.

That's just wrong.

also the deal the state unions made here in Ca...nice....

It happens all over. The unions, because they ARE able to buy special favors, use a huge chunk of the dues their members are required to pay to to do just that. They aren't the only culprits of course, but they are an excellent example of a group that are in a position to help candidates who will be 'grateful' enough to be sure there will be ample reward for the support.

But I envision the original intent of the Founders being reinstated where Congress would have no ability to benefit anybody for anything without benefitting everybody. The original Constitution has been so corrupted on that score that it will probably take a Constitutional amendment to fix it.

And while we're at it, we should look at the benefits our elected leaders grant to themselves too. For instance, President Obama, members of Congress, their staffs, and their families have already said they no intention of giving up their cadillac healthcare coverage with no deductibles or copays and including eye, dental, cosmetic, and anything else they want and all at taxpayer expense. Do you think the healthcare package they want to force on us will provide us with anything comparable? For free?