Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

".... I assume then, that if and when Dems start blocking pro-republican Web sites from locations they are in power, that you would be okay with that?"

REPLY: Oh..... you mean like Obama now having the kill switch on the internet?

That's just another example of your deflecting from the issue; For one, we have an actual case of Web censoring by a sitting governor, for the other, a bill that has not been signed into law, in part sponsored by a republican. Obama actually has nothing to do with the "kill switch", you should take it up with the bill's authors:

In 2010, the bill's sponsors -- Lieberman, Maine Republican Susan Collins and Delaware Democrat Tom Carper -- introduced a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that would have defined emergency powers that the president could use, including shutting down parts of the Internet, when there's an "ongoing or imminent" cyberattack on the nation's critical infrastructure.

Call them up to complain about the kill switch. Obama didn't write, sign it, or request it.

REPLY: True, one or two of his czars did, and he'll sign it, too. He does the czar thing because that way he can have plausible deniability. Geez.... the guy has more czars than a Romanoff wedding (and they all hate capitalism and America.)

I just thought it was noteworthy, that over the weekend all faculty of our university received 3 emails from the Dean of the University already this fine Monday morning.

What were the emails?

They were running updates of how many people "liked" the anti-Walker Facebook page versus how many people supported him.

The final email from the Dean at 8:00am claimed that although the school only had a marginal amount more than the pro-Walker page, he realized that those facebook users opposed to Walker that "liked" the page had more friends (how he knows this I'm not sure) so the exposure was greater for those opposed.

What a joke of tax dollars.

The Dean has canceled meetings, orientations, etc. just to go to Madison and hold forums on Walker. Ridiculous waste of money.

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
To all the Union-bashers on this thread, without Unions you would be working 80 hours/week, no days off, horrible pay, no pension, no vacation and you would work for the rest of your life. People brave enough to get the Labour movement going back in the day paid with blood and some their lives so you could have a decent wage, workplace safety, vacations, weekends off, medical benefits, etc.

REPLY: Most all of the safety and working hour issues have been taken over by the government, at union request over a few decades. Unions are not "worker against employer," they are "worker against worker." There's not one union job that couldn't be done by non-union workers. and we're not talking of things past, but as things are today. Most of what unions do today is nothing more than forcing an employer to pay more than the job is worth....... many times more. Between union costs and government taxes imposed on workers, it's no wonder companies are going overseas just to keep their doors open. Forcing someone to join a union in order to work is akin to involuntary servitude.

You non-union people should be kissing unions asses for giving you decent jobs to work at. Without them you'd be making nothing and have no rights! Are all Unions good?... of course not. Are they better than having no workplace representation? Of course they are, "United we stand, divided we fall".

REPLY: Unions don't provide jobs (decent or otherwise,) private industry and capitalism do.

Greedy corporations have taken jobs offshore, not Unions.

REPLY: Again, over-arching government control, taxes and uneducated (teachers union-schooled) graduates are what causes companies to look elsewhere for qualified employees. And, for what it's worth, a recent nation-wide study found that for every job that goes overseas results in two jobs being created here.