WI democrats walk out of Senate

[Zekester]

It's always 'democracy' when the liberals get what they want. But it never is when they don't.

[hepcat]

It's always 'democracy' when the liberals get what they want. But it never is when they don't.

It's always "democracy" when the conservatives get what they want.  But it never is when they don't.

[Ironrod]

It's always 'democracy' when the liberals get what they want.

No, it's "socialism".

[th'FOOL]

Ahh, checks & balances.

[Alefroth]

It's not breaking the law when conservatives get what they want, only when liberals do.

Ale

[Zekester]

you spin right round baby, right round.

like a record baby, round round, right round

[Alefroth]

Are you disputing a law was violated?

Ale

[Zekester]

Way to miss that little joke.

As far as laws being broke, why dont we start with government-forced health care first?

.

[hepcat]

I like big butts and I cannot lie.  When a juicy double walks on...

oh...i thought we were just quoting song lyrics at this point...

[Zekester]

 

[Exodor]

As far as laws being broke, why dont we start with government-forced health care first?

Sure.  What law does that violate?  Be specific.

[Zekester]

Only the Constitution of the United States

no big deal though, right? remember that law document?

[hepcat]

Only the Constitution of the United States

no big deal though, right? remember that law document?

using that line of reasoning, the constitution is being broken every time someone cashes a social security check, uses medicare or demands minimum wage.

[brettmcd]

As far as laws being broke, why dont we start with government-forced health care first?

Sure.  What law does that violate?  Be specific.

Its been declared unconstitutional by more judges then the WI law has been.

[hepcat]

As far as laws being broke, why dont we start with government-forced health care first?

Sure.  What law does that violate?  Be specific.

Its been declared unconstitutional by more judges then the WI law has been.

more due to one being federal and the other being state.

[Alefroth]

Way to miss that little joke.

As far as laws being broke, why dont we start with government-forced health care first?

.

Way to prove my point. You did all right too, Brett.

Ale

[Isgrimnur]

Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

[brettmcd]

Way to miss that little joke.

As far as laws being broke, why dont we start with government-forced health care first?

.

Way to prove my point. You did all right too, Brett.

Ale

I did nothing to prove your point, all the judge in WI did was put an injunction in place to they could see IF a law was violated.   To claim that any law was violated at this time would be premature as the judge has not decided anything yet.   On the health care bill a ruling has already been made that it is unconstitutional, and its being appealed.    These are two completely different things.

[Alefroth]

Oops you did it again.

Ale

[brettmcd]

Oops you did it again.

Ale

In what way have I done anything wrong, if the judge actually finds that the law was broken in WI then that is what happened, nothing to argue about at that time.   That hasnt happened yet.

[Zekester]

Don't waste your time, brett.

Ale's game is to 

[Zekester]

Will the unions manage to ruin Ford now?

Bill Johnson, who represents workers at a Ford plant in Wayne, Mich., told the Detroit Free Press that if Ford does not restore "everything" to the union, "the membership is going to knock it down."

[hepcat]

Now the unions want to ruin Ford

Bill Johnson, who represents workers at a Ford plant in Wayne, Mich., told the Detroit Free Press that if Ford does not restore "everything" to the union, "the membership is going to knock it down."

you forgot to quote the very next paragraph:

Of  Detroit's Big Three, Ford is doing the best. The company did not have to declare bankruptcy and did not accept a federal government bailout. Last year, the company earned $6.6 billion and it has since awarded millions in bonuses to senior executives.

You're okay with the executives taking millions in bonuses for themselves, but when the workers who they profit off of ask to have back the things they sacrificed in order to keep the company afloat now that the company is back in the black, they're the bad guys?

[Zekester]

No, im not ok with it.

I would like to see some kind of progressive earnings structure throughout business in the US, so that earnings are distributed more fairly and greed can be curbed.

[gellar]

No, im not ok with it.

I would like to see some kind of progressive earnings structure throughout business in the US, so that earnings are distributed more fairly and greed can be curbed.

SOCIALIST.  SOCIALIST!!!

[hepcat]

 

and with that, the zekester put a gun to the head of every republican conservative in existence and pulled the trigger. 

[msteelers]

What does a union for Ford employees have to do with unions for public employees in Wisconsin?

Still, once you get past the inflammatory quotes there's an interesting discussion there.

The auto union has made a series of concessions over the past several years as the industry's financial woes became increasingly more dire. They agreed to pay higher premiums and higher co-payments for health care in 2005. In the last four-year contract in 2007, they set up a second-tier wage for entry-level workers starting at $14 an hour, or about half the wage for current workers. They also approved several other changes, though union members received a $3,000 bonus in exchange for the agreement.

In 2009, workers went further and agreed to suspend bonuses and cost-of-living increases, among other concessions.

But with executives getting hefty bonuses and union workers now looking for their share, one Michigan economist warned that the industry could be drifting toward the habits that originally made it less competitive against leaner foreign automakers.

Personally I think that if executives are getting large bonuses, then some of that should go to reward the employees as well. Is the $3,000 bonus that union members got for taking the cutbacks enough of a "reward" for the company succeeding? I know very little about the situation, so I can't say for sure. All I know is that the article isn't as inflammatory as Zeke's quote made it out to be. Ford is doing better, and the union wants its cut. This isn't exactly breaking news.

[hepcat]

If it includes the word "Union", it will cause the zekeman to explode.

This is why he's also against "Civil Unions" and hates Duran Duran's "Union of the Snake".

[Zekester]

LOL nah, public-sector unions are a different beast. I'll admit my post was a bit inflammatory  so i'll go back and fix it.

[hepcat]

LOL nah, public-sector unions are a different beast. I'll admit my post was a bit inflammatory  so i'll go back and fix it.

<zeke "fixes" post to read "Will the unions manage to ruin Ford now?">



and the lesson of the day is that the Zeke doesn't know what "fix" means.   

[Zekester]

No, im not ok with it.

I would like to see some kind of progressive earnings structure throughout business in the US, so that earnings are distributed more fairly and greed can be curbed.

SOCIALIST.  SOCIALIST!!!

What i'd like to see is every employee from the bottom to the top get a percentage of profits, but progressively.

So let's say the laborers get 1% total profits, while the CEO/owner would get 5%, as an example.

This way everyone would have a common interest in seeing the company do well, the higher ups would still make a bundle, yet greed would be curbed.

Think it would work?

[gellar]

No, im not ok with it.

I would like to see some kind of progressive earnings structure throughout business in the US, so that earnings are distributed more fairly and greed can be curbed.

SOCIALIST.  SOCIALIST!!!

What i'd like to see is every employee from the bottom to the top get a percentage of profits, but progressively.

So let's say the laborers get 1% total profits, while the CEO/owner would get 5%, as an example.

This way everyone would have a common interest in seeing the company do well, the higher ups would still make a bundle, yet greed would be curbed.

Think it would work?

Sarah Palin would be so disappointed in you.

[Zekester]

LOL nah, public-sector unions are a different beast. I'll admit my post was a bit inflammatory  so i'll go back and fix it.

<zeke "fixes" post to read "Will the unions manage to ruin Ford now?">



and the lesson of the day is that the Zeke doesn't know what "fix" means.   

that's as good as it gets, buddy  

[hepcat]

What i'd like to see is every employee from the bottom to the top get a percentage of profits, but progressively.

So let's say the laborers get 1% total profits, while the CEO/owner would get 5%, as an example.

This way everyone would have a common interest in seeing the company do well, the higher ups would still make a bundle, yet greed would be curbed.

Think it would work?

It would...in Marxist Russia.   

Dude, this whole time you've been passing yourself off as a conservative republican.  Amazing.   

[Zekester]

I've always said I was right leaning

I never said I was completely bent over and getting up the pooper

[hepcat]

I've always said I was right leaning

I never said I was completely bent over and getting up the pooper

Now I don't expect it to get any better here as far as i'm concerned, so i'll be leaving. You same posters that have always chimed in to my threads with your personal cuts, attacks and shitty remarks can celebrate. This forum now has one less controversial conservative member who wasn't afraid to throw some unusual stuff out there.

your ankles must be horribly bruised right now...   

[Zekester]

Damn, your arm has to hurt from all that reaching you've been doing lately 

[hepcat]

Nah.  Only took me a few minutes to find a post in which you call yourself a conservative.

[Alefroth]

No, im not ok with it.

I would like to see some kind of progressive earnings structure throughout business in the US, so that earnings are distributed more fairly and greed can be curbed.

SOCIALIST.  SOCIALIST!!!

What i'd like to see is every employee from the bottom to the top get a percentage of profits, but progressively.

So let's say the laborers get 1% total profits, while the CEO/owner would get 5%, as an example.

This way everyone would have a common interest in seeing the company do well, the higher ups would still make a bundle, yet greed would be curbed.

Think it would work?

What happens if it equals more than 100%?

Ale

[Zekester]

It would need fine-tuned, for sure.

But I don't see many downsides to something like this.