Florida Leads The Way...

[bodecea]

I don't talk about BOYS You are an idiot...

HERE AND NOW...

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

what? and yes you do. always saying boy and all that...
you are a drunk priest

*Sigh*

And you operae from a false premise that shows *YOU* to be STUPID.

How's that make you feel? You know me from no one...and yet YOU make assumptions based on innuendo...

*JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU ANYWAY*?

The Goddess of Irony is well pleased by this offering.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Hemstreet served as a scoutmaster and a Sea Scout Skipper for various troops between 1964 and 1987 while he was a priest in the northwestern part of Ohio. He was awarded the Silver Beaver award for his years of service -- the highest award BSA gives to adults.

Hemstreet admits to being a homosexual and a child molester. In 1992, he confessed to molesting a 10-year-old boy. "I have done a terrible, horrible disservice to a boy. I have done a disservice to my community, and I have a moral and civil obligation to try to give something back to my community. PFLAG is one of the things I have elected to do -- to do community service," explained Hemstreet."
Child molester leads 'gays' in Scout protest

 

[bripat9643]

Bull. If a pipe fitter wants to get a job he's qualified for in a union state, he has to join the union. He doesn't have a choice. Saying he can work at Burger King if he doesn't want to join the union is Stalinist horse squeeze. According to that definition of "voluntary," paying protection money to Guido the local leg breaker is "voluntary" because you can close your business and move if you don't like it.

So why do I have to sell my stock, then? If I really like Apple's products and I think they are going to make a lot of money, why should I be forced to have Apple spend my money that I have contributed to the company in ways I think are politically inappropriate? Why should I have to miss out earning a boatload of money because you think I should sell my stock because I don't like Steve Jobs's politics? How is that any different than the pipe fitter who has to miss out earning money as a pipe fitter and instead has to work at Wal-Mart?

Don't be absurd. Why do you have to move out when you sell your house?

That's the deal you made when you bought the stock. No one forced you to buy it. However, some union thug did force you to join the union when you want to make a contractual arrangement with an employer. The union is an uninvited third party, just like the local extortion racket. In fact, that is exactly what a union is, an extortion racket. The only thing that distinguishes it is the fact that it's legal.

I'm not necessarily pro or anti-union. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument. If you think that union members should have the right to dictate to the union where their money should go politically, why do shareholders not have the same rights with their money in a corporation? Why should shareholders have less say over their money than union members? Why are shareholders less worthy than union members?

There is no hypocrisy in my argument. Buy stock is entirely voluntary. The buyer and the seller are the only parties involved in the negotiation. Unions are univited third party. They operate in identical fashion to an extortion racket. You pay for their "services" whether you want them or not.

Oh, and your argument is wrong on another level. If your only choices in a 401k plan are mutual funds, the shareholder cannot sell his stock. He has to own it. If he is part of a defined benefit pension plan, he cannot sell his stock. He has to own it. And of course, not every shareholder can sell stock.

If you buy a house with two bedrooms, you aren't allowed to whine after the deal and demand a third. Furthermore, 401K's always offer more alternatives than that.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe the ruling on the boyscouts that they can keep Gay scoutmasters from joining their group was decided already.

True, but all you libs think that decision was incorrect.

And....?

So you think the government should compel the Boy scouts to allow perverts to supervise young boys. Then you whine when the government prevents unions from shaking down their members for political contributions.

 

[AllieBaba]

Bod also approves of anti-American terrorism and abortion. Let's just say she doesn't put much value on life, period. Particularly the lives and well being of children.

 

[Ernie S.]

Shares, not share holders, have the same rights as union members. If I own 51% of the shares of a corporation, what I say goes. In a union, every member essentially holds one share. What's so hard to understand?

I'm not saying all shareholders should have an equal vote. If you have 51% of the shares, and you want the company to donate $1000, then the company should be able to donate $510 of the company's money. If the other 49% wants to donate $2000, then the company can donate $1490. If on the other hand the 49% wants to donate $0, then the most a company can donate is $510.

At least this is the way it should be if you are going to give union members the right to have a say over where their dues go for political purposes. If you give the right to dictate how one's money is spent to union members, you should give that right to shareholders too. Why should shareholders have less rights than union members?

On the other hand, if you think the union can spend money on political activities without consulting their membership, then corporations don't need to consult with shareholders either. Just be consistent.

So, if a union wanted to donate $1,000, and the vote was 80/20 the money should be allocated that way? Show me where the NEA has donated money to the GOP!
Corporations donate far more money to liberal candidates than unions to Conservatives, but Corporations are evil and unions get a pass in your failed logic.

 

[Toro]

So, if a union wanted to donate $1,000, and the vote was 80/20 the money should be allocated that way? Show me where the NEA has donated money to the GOP!
Corporations donate far more money to liberal candidates than unions to Conservatives, but Corporations are evil and unions get a pass in your failed logic.

This isn't about how political donations are used. This is about the rights of union members and shareholders over their funds.

If you give union members the right to withhold their dues from political activities, you should also give shareholders the same rights to withhold their funds from political activities. And if you don't give union members those rights, then you don't give those rights to shareholders.

Would you support it if shareholders could withhold their funds from political activities but not union members?

 

[Ravi]

Shares, not share holders, have the same rights as union members. If I own 51% of the shares of a corporation, what I say goes. In a union, every member essentially holds one share. What's so hard to understand?

I'm not saying all shareholders should have an equal vote. If you have 51% of the shares, and you want the company to donate $1000, then the company should be able to donate $510 of the company's money. If the other 49% wants to donate $2000, then the company can donate $1490. If on the other hand the 49% wants to donate $0, then the most a company can donate is $510.

At least this is the way it should be if you are going to give union members the right to have a say over where their dues go for political purposes. If you give the right to dictate how one's money is spent to union members, you should give that right to shareholders too. Why should shareholders have less rights than union members?

On the other hand, if you think the union can spend money on political activities without consulting their membership, then corporations don't need to consult with shareholders either. Just be consistent.

So, if a union wanted to donate $1,000, and the vote was 80/20 the money should be allocated that way? Show me where the NEA has donated money to the GOP!
Corporations donate far more money to liberal candidates than unions to Conservatives, but Corporations are evil and unions get a pass in your failed logic.

Your question is a bit off topic, but in 2010 here is a list of Republican senators they supported:

Brown, Scott P (RMA) Senate $2,400 Bennett, Robert F (RUT) Senate $1,000 Crapo, Mike (RID) Senate $1,000 Enzi, Mike (RWY) Senate $1,000 Roberts, Pat (RKS) Senate $1,000 Johanns, Michael O (RNE) Senate $-100
National Education Assn: All Recipients | OpenSecrets

 

[bodecea]

True, but all you libs think that decision was incorrect.

And....?

So you think the government should compel the Boy scouts to allow perverts to supervise young boys. Then you whine when the government prevents unions from shaking down their members for political contributions.

No....I am asking what's the big deal about people thinking court decisions are incorrect. That happens everytime there is a court decision, don't you think?

 

[bodecea]

Bod also approves of anti-American terrorism and abortion. Let's just say she doesn't put much value on life, period. Particularly the lives and well being of children.

Poor Allie....she apparently is now obsessed with me. It beats having to actually DO ANYTHING about the issues she whines about.

 

[hipeter924]

Yes, we should take advice from a little known black hole otherwise known as Florida, that is sinking in its debt, not.

 

[Toro]

That's the deal you made when you bought the stock. No one forced you to buy it. However, some union thug did force you to join the union when you want to make a contractual arrangement with an employer. The union is an uninvited third party, just like the local extortion racket. In fact, that is exactly what a union is, an extortion racket. The only thing that distinguishes it is the fact that it's legal.

Notwithstanding your extreme bias against unions, it is not "the deal" when I bought stock any more than it is "the deal" to join a union when one becomes a pipe fitter. It's only "the deal" because that is how the law has defined it.

Corporations are legal entities defined by the state. The state has created a legal entity that defines the organization and rights of capital. Unions are legal entities which define the organization and rights of labour. And if you don't like the union, vote to de-certify it.

 

[bripat9643]

This isn't about how political donations are used. This is about the rights of union members and shareholders over their funds.

If you give union members the right to withhold their dues from political activities, you should also give shareholders the same rights to withhold their funds from political activities. And if you don't give union members those rights, then you don't give those rights to shareholders.

Would you support it if shareholders could withhold their funds from political activities but not union members?

In the case of corporations, there are no "funds" to withhold. Shareholders don't make donations to the corporation. They buy a share of stock, and they receive the value of that share when they sell it. It's no different than buying and selling a car or a baseball card.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm not saying all shareholders should have an equal vote. If you have 51% of the shares, and you want the company to donate $1000, then the company should be able to donate $510 of the company's money. If the other 49% wants to donate $2000, then the company can donate $1490. If on the other hand the 49% wants to donate $0, then the most a company can donate is $510.

At least this is the way it should be if you are going to give union members the right to have a say over where their dues go for political purposes. If you give the right to dictate how one's money is spent to union members, you should give that right to shareholders too. Why should shareholders have less rights than union members?

On the other hand, if you think the union can spend money on political activities without consulting their membership, then corporations don't need to consult with shareholders either. Just be consistent.

So, if a union wanted to donate $1,000, and the vote was 80/20 the money should be allocated that way? Show me where the NEA has donated money to the GOP!
Corporations donate far more money to liberal candidates than unions to Conservatives, but Corporations are evil and unions get a pass in your failed logic.

Your question is a bit off topic, but in 2010 here is a list of Republican senators they supported:

Brown, Scott P (RMA) Senate $2,400 Bennett, Robert F (RUT) Senate $1,000 Crapo, Mike (RID) Senate $1,000 Enzi, Mike (RWY) Senate $1,000 Roberts, Pat (RKS) Senate $1,000 Johanns, Michael O (RNE) Senate $-100
National Education Assn: All Recipients | OpenSecrets

Granted, the NEA has contributed to GOP candidates. I would guess that they sent some cash to Charlie Christ last year too; not because they were against Kendrick Meeks but because they were against Marco Rubio. Look at the states you mentioned. With the exception of Mass., just about every race in which listed was one where there was little chance of having a Democrat victory.
Now go back to your link and give me totals of contributions to DNC candidates and causes vs. GOP.
Compare that to corporate donations.

 

[bripat9643]

Notwithstanding your extreme bias against unions, it is not "the deal" when I bought stock any more than it is "the deal" to join a union when one becomes a pipe fitter. It's only "the deal" because that is how the law has defined it.

I have no idea what "the deal" is supposed to refer to. Those who don't want their intentions clearly understood resort to deliberately vague and imprecise terminology. The essential fact is this, buy a share of stock is entirely voluntary. Joining a union in a state without right to work laws is not voluntary.

Corporations are legal entities defined by the state. The state has created a legal entity that defines the organization and rights of capital. Unions are legal entities which define the organization and rights of labour. And if you don't like the union, vote to de-certify it.

All you have proved is that in the case of unions the state has legalized an extortion racket.

 

[Ravi]

So, if a union wanted to donate $1,000, and the vote was 80/20 the money should be allocated that way? Show me where the NEA has donated money to the GOP!
Corporations donate far more money to liberal candidates than unions to Conservatives, but Corporations are evil and unions get a pass in your failed logic.

Your question is a bit off topic, but in 2010 here is a list of Republican senators they supported:

Brown, Scott P (RMA) Senate $2,400 Bennett, Robert F (RUT) Senate $1,000 Crapo, Mike (RID) Senate $1,000 Enzi, Mike (RWY) Senate $1,000 Roberts, Pat (RKS) Senate $1,000 Johanns, Michael O (RNE) Senate $-100
National Education Assn: All Recipients | OpenSecrets

Granted, the NEA has contributed to GOP candidates. I would guess that they sent some cash to Charlie Christ last year too; not because they were against Kendrick Meeks but because they were against Marco Rubio. Look at the states you mentioned. With the exception of Mass., just about every race in which listed was one where there was little chance of having a Democrat victory.
Now go back to your link and give me totals of contributions to DNC candidates and causes vs. GOP.
Compare that to corporate donations.

I was merely interested in showing you that you were incorrect. That said, I imagine the NEA supports candidates that they feel will be more likely to support education and that small list is of Republicans that support education.

 

[Ernie S.]

So, if a union wanted to donate $1,000, and the vote was 80/20 the money should be allocated that way? Show me where the NEA has donated money to the GOP!
Corporations donate far more money to liberal candidates than unions to Conservatives, but Corporations are evil and unions get a pass in your failed logic.

This isn't about how political donations are used. This is about the rights of union members and shareholders over their funds.

If you give union members the right to withhold their dues from political activities, you should also give shareholders the same rights to withhold their funds from political activities. And if you don't give union members those rights, then you don't give those rights to shareholders.

Would you support it if shareholders could withhold their funds from political activities but not union members?

Logically yes, emotionally no, but from what I see, you feel the same way except for who should get the majority of the cash.

 

[Ernie S.]

Your question is a bit off topic, but in 2010 here is a list of Republican senators they supported:

Brown, Scott P (RMA) Senate $2,400 Bennett, Robert F (RUT) Senate $1,000 Crapo, Mike (RID) Senate $1,000 Enzi, Mike (RWY) Senate $1,000 Roberts, Pat (RKS) Senate $1,000 Johanns, Michael O (RNE) Senate $-100
National Education Assn: All Recipients | OpenSecrets

Granted, the NEA has contributed to GOP candidates. I would guess that they sent some cash to Charlie Christ last year too; not because they were against Kendrick Meeks but because they were against Marco Rubio. Look at the states you mentioned. With the exception of Mass., just about every race in which listed was one where there was little chance of having a Democrat victory.
Now go back to your link and give me totals of contributions to DNC candidates and causes vs. GOP.
Compare that to corporate donations.

I was merely interested in showing you that you were incorrect. That said, I imagine the NEA supports candidates that they feel will be more likely to support education and that small list is of Republicans that support education.

In all but one case you listed, it was more about who was going to win than who would be more supportive. I see you avoided my questions though.

 

[Toro]

Logically yes, emotionally no, but from what I see, you feel the same way except for who should get the majority of the cash.

In total, I believe corporations give more money to political activities than unions.

I am more pro-corporations than I am pro-unions. But what I am trying to be is pro-consistent.

 

[Ernie S.]

Logically yes, emotionally no, but from what I see, you feel the same way except for who should get the majority of the cash.

In total, I believe corporations give more money to political activities than unions.

I am more pro-corporations than I am pro-unions. But what I am trying to be is pro-consistent.

The table might be hard to figure out due to formatting, but it would seem that labor unions, professional associations and GSE's


Full chart here:



Rank Organization Total '89-'10 Dem % Repub %
1 ActBlue $51,124,846 99% 0%
2 AT&T Inc $46,292,670 44% 55%
3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $43,477,361 98% 1%
4 National Assn of Realtors $38,721,441 49% 50%
5 Goldman Sachs $33,387,252 61% 37%
6 American Assn for Justice $33,143,279 90% 8%
7 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $33,056,216 97% 2%
8 National Education Assn $32,024,610 93% 6%
9 Laborers Union $30,292,050 92% 7%
10 Teamsters Union $29,319,982 93% 6%