It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wisconsin protesters to face Tea Party counter protesters today

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:02 PM
Sharing this:

Link to watch protests live

Also coming on Monday as the protests spark in Indiana:

Continuing their resistance to the damaging changes being planned by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, union supporters and teachers are organizing a large protest for Monday, Feb 21, 2011. The rally will take place at 9am at the Indiana Statehouse where the State Senate will be considering new limits on union rights. House Bill 1468, the so-called Right To Work bill is, of course, trying to ensure the Right To Work For Less.


posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by prexparte

You're right. They both have their right to protest. This may turn out to be far more important than any of us realize.

edit on 2/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

Maybe John Titor just had the years wrong for this timeline for the start of the 2nd Ameican civil war. I believe he did say it would be between city dwellers and rural people. Red vs. blue.

Is this the start of it?

Just wondering ...

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by inforeal

Who doesn't want decent wages for honest work?
This whole issue is about raises. The teachers union wants set raises, the gov wants teachers raises set against the inflation rate and cost of living.

No-one is taking money away from anyone. The teachers just want HIGHER RAISES.

And this is why we are in this pickle today.

I am not sure where your information is coming from (maybe some links?), but since all the unions have agreed to the financial aspects of the bill and are only demanding their right to collective bargaining be protected why is Walker the one saying no deal?

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by Montana

Because thier idea of collective bargining means "doing what we want".

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by beezzer

Agreeing to what is being demanded of them is "doing what they want"?


I think that answer should tell everyone who is being unreasonable here.

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by Montana

The government unions have been unreasonable from the get-go.

Their bahaviour illustrates the arrogance and power that the unions have.

If they wanted equality, they'd take a damned pay cut! They are greedy and want more tax payer money into the government system.

So, hey, if you are for bigger government, bigger government control, then JUST SAY SO!!!!!!

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by beezzer

To use your words, they took "the damned pay cut". Why are you perpetrating the fallacy that this is still about pay and money?

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Jeremiah Johnson

I think it's the mixing apples with oranges that's getting to me so much. Different issues. My issue is deeper in that I tend to appear like I side with unions when in fact it's a different "thing" that bothers me. Without some kind of solidarity to unify us we're just going to continue to be enslaved. Unions just happen to be the easy target in this case to shoot down, but I think any unifying "thing" would pretty much gets the same treatment.

You hit the nail on the head here! There is no possibility of "solidarity" with constituitonal freedom and the Union's ideal of socialism. They are opposite systems of government structure, social cultures and economics. That is why we are forever polarized in the US. That is why I seriously consider the solution of splitting the US into two countries - one free and one socialist. I don't see how the desire for constitutional freedom and the desire for socialism can be reconciled as one, by it's defination and nature, precludes the other.

The division goes deeper than just the Left's argument of wealth redistrution through taxation. The division in ideology also travels into elite's push for economic and social globalism and the role of our military in the world. A constitutional Republic can not be an empire as there would not rest in the Federal government, the power and money to pursue global dominance and an end to Nationhood. The elite pursuing the end of our country's constitutional sovergnity would be treason. It would not permit global wealth redistribution and trade control - the two legged stool of Leftist and Corporate support for globalism.

I definently understand your frustration about our people being hopelessly divided while we all share the desire to kick the corrupt elite's you know what! To do that, you have to share a common idenity in and of Nation, a system of law and governing ideology which we no longer seem to have in the US.

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by Montana

Then what is this about? These people who have their salaries from tax payer money are demanding more.

How simple can I make this?

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Montana

Then what is this about? These people who have their salaries from tax payer money are demanding more.

How simple can I make this?

You can make that statement as simple as you want, but that won't mean it has anything to do with reality.

Let me put this as clearly as I can. According to news reports from Wisconsin, all the unions have agreed to the pay and benefit cuts demanded by the Governor. Again, the unions HAVE ALREADY AGREED to the pay and benefit cuts.

If this were REALLY only about money, everyone could go home. It's not. It's about removing the right of people to join together and bargain from a position of power equal to the employer in the future. That's it people, that's the only thing still in contention.

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by DancedWithWolves

Just got back, and thanks. Watching now. That's a lot of people.

This is sort of crazy..."...they passed my bill by mistake...." However, there are some very good points in it.

edit on 2/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

Why Wisconsin's budget protests matter

Think this is just a narrow budget fight in one state? Think again.

"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you are just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems more like an assault on unions," said Obama.

He knows Wisconsin is just round one in the national battle for control of the budget message, so he's sent his outside political team, Organizing for America, to help build even larger crowds. Union officials are vowing to take the protests to Ohio, Indiana and other big 2012 political battlegrounds.
"Everybody's got to make some adjustments to new fiscal realities," said Obama. "We had to impose, for example, a freeze on pay increases for federal workers."

But Republicans say the president started the week at a White House news conference saying that he wanted a quote, "adult conversation" with Republicans to figure out how to pay for all these government programs. Now he's ending the week by trying to expand the protests that may make it harder for both sides to come together.

edit on 2/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:23 PM
A very interesting OP on the situation by Karl D...

Two "S" Words For Saturday

The first one: STATE.

You know, that thing that has all of the powers of government not explicitly delegated in The Constitution to The Federal government? Yes, that thing. There are 50 of them in The United States.

Notice that we don't call the nation "The United Federal Government." We call it "The United STATES." That's because States have supremacy. Always have. They originally joined together under a promise of a limited Federal government, which was mostly about the common defense - and little more.

Now as for the second word..... Sedition.

1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic . rebellious disorder.

I'm going to draw the line between the word sedition and the act of seditious conspiracy; the latter is a federal offense. At least today, that line may still apply. It may be true, however, that as facts develop we will discover that this line has been crossed.

In America we have these things called elections. After the 2008 election Barack Obama was having a discussion with Republican lawmakers where they were objecting to some of his plans. They asked him why they should negotiate with a wall, effectively, and his answer was simple:

"I won."

Ok. Fair enough. Elections have consequences, right, and one of the key points that Barack Obama himself has put forward time and time again as justification for his alleged "mandate" was that he won the 2008 election.

Never mind that he lied about virtually everything he said he was going to do. Among other things he said he did not come to Washington to favor the banksters, but in point of fact he has provided more Lewinskis to them than Monica ever did to Bill Clinton. His so-called Attorney General, Eric "Place" Holder, can't even find a felony to indict and prosecute when they're apparently admitted to under oath before the FCIC.

It is clear at this point that the game is to run the Statute of Limitations so that prosecution becomes impossible. That is, for those who elected Barack Obama, you by doing so - yes, this includes me - provided every bankster a "never go to jail" card for what they did.

In fact, Angelo Mozilo had the criminal probe against him dropped yesterday, if reports are correct.

Of course McStain was going to do the same thing. So it's not like we really had a choice between "D" and "R" in this regard, right? Well, no.

We were also told our health insurance payments would go down. Mine went up - more than 20%. This, despite being told it wouldn't. That we would get "relief." Well, no, we didn't get relief. We got cornholed.

After two years of this blatant abuse Americans had enough. They went to the polls again. And this time they threw a lot of Demoncrats out of office. One of the newly-elected politicians was Republican Governor Walker in Wisconsin.

He ran on a platform that, among other things, promised to do away with collective bargaining for teachers for all items other than pay. That is, pensions, health insurance, work rules, everything else. All those things, if they were going to be larded up on the public, would have to survive a public vote by the people.

What's wrong with this, may I ask? Teachers are employed by the people. Did you notice your property tax bill? You're the boss. You pay the check. You make the rules. And in a representative government, you hire people through the ballots to do as you demand.

Wisconsin did exactly that.

Governor Walker did exactly what he promised. Faced with a monstrous budget problem that was gimmicked and gamed by his predecessor to appear smaller than it really was (just as occurred in New Jersey with Governor Christie) he put forward a bill.

Remember now, the standard is "I won" when it comes to justification - by our own President.

Mr. Walker won.

So what did our President's campaign organization - "Organizing For America" - do?

OfA Wisconsin's field efforts include filling buses and building turnout for the rallies this week in Madison, organizing 15 rapid response phone banks urging supporters to call their state legislators, and working on planning and producing rallies, a Democratic Party official in Washington said.


Our own President's campaign apparatus is attempting to prevent a vote from taking place? To overturn an election? To incite discontent against a duly-elected government, perhaps by importing people who aren't actually Wisconsin residents? And to spread that discontent to other states?

Really? Our own President is doing this?

That's textbook stuff folks. As in Mubarak's textbook.

Didn't we just see a government go down with our support in Egypt over this exact same thing? A government where the people said "do X", government did "Y", and the people rose? And let us not forget that in Egypt it was not the people who were shooting, it was government goons - rifles are prohibited from private ownership in Egypt.

These acts have a word folks: Sedition.

Read the rest at the link.

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by centurion1211

Yes, I remember reading that. That same thought keeps running through my mind too. So far, it's peaceful. :Let's hope it stays that way.

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:34 PM

So people gathering together to demand that a signed mutually agreed to contract be honored is now sedition.

People protesting the actions of a government that are intended to remove the right to collectively bargain is sedition.

This is what my USA has come to? Citizens demanding fairness and a voice are now labeled as seditious?

I thought that was what the United States of America WAS ALL ABOUT...

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by Vitchilo

This article sound to me like it's just more of the same from that "side." Where's their outrage over CEO salaries? Even Congressional salaries? This dude just doesn't "like" Obama. Calling this sedition seems like a real stretch to me. More like a case of the majority trying to take away the rights of a minority. But the "minority" might not be such in this case. Maybe it's time that "silent majority" kicked their collective ass into gear.

edit on 2/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:06 PM
Sorry I just cannot have sympathy when average salary is $52,644 and benefits on top of that are $17.000 +

Whats average US private citizen taxpayer, $42,000?

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by Phoenix

Seems like a good reason to go Union???

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:10 PM
If as an employee, no matter if it's public or private sector, you don't have the right to negotiate with your employer on equal ground history show's us the employee will lose rights. History has also shown to repeat itself as we all know. So in no way do I agree with taking those rights or blocking that ability...nothing good will come of it unless your on the employer side. Now if that's you then well I see why you would want that lol. Most of us however are not on that side of this situation we are being employed. Why would you ever wanna put yourself in the position to be controlled by the same corporate structure that we hate so vocally in the rest of this forum for the evil things they already do around the world and at home? In fact...corporate could easily be replaced with government so the argument is the same. The state already figured out that they either take cuts or lose jobs well it's on them right there it's they're choice...THAT'S BARGAINING RIGHT THERE! they can either figure out how to take cuts or lose jobs there is no reason they should lose a freedom as important as the right to join together to have an equal playing field at work.

On a side note this has now gotten silly they have agreed on the cuts put forth and will go back to work but they wanna strip them of an essential right. In fact as I type this the guy on CNN is saying the governor says "WI doesn't have the money to collectively bargain at all" which makes no sense silly

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:14 PM
Looks like it's breaking up. Dinner time!

reply to post by Phoenix

So you'd rather see people lose their voice and come down to a lower standard , maybe your standard, than raise people up. Good globalist. Or maybe it's jealousy?

edit on 2/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by sara123123

I totally get what you're saying about the two countries thing. That's a recurrent theme in my thinking as well. The only problem with this is that I'd have to split myself in two

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in