It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Well I am going to go head and call this one, In comes the gaurd..

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr. D
 



Fire the police?


They have a job to do. Nothing they have been ordered to do has been in violation of constitutional rights. They do not have any ground to stand on. Any officer shirking his/her duties to join a protest, particularly those doing so in uniform, should be fired.

Know what happens to me, as uniformed military dancing around in a political protest? It's a bit harder to fire federal employees - but they'll make life substantially more difficult.

While in uniform - and, generally, while under contract - you don't have the right to protest. Most aren't going to say anything if you're off-duty and out of uniform - it is generally discouraged (protests generally are anti-military and peace activists tend to rough our boys up from time to time, and it's just not a good idea lest someone discover your affiliation and either beat you up or turn you (and the military) into a poster-boy for the rainbow parade or something.


How about impeach crooked politicians?


Then who would take campaign donations from the unions and ensure increased employee benefits beyond sustainable levels?

Really - the going trend around here is to call politicians crooked when you don't agree with them. We need to do a better job of picking out all sides of the aisle that do shady business inside of politics.


If anyone should be fired it's
those who side with big business to take the very rights we have fought for away.


Businesses can't take away your rights. In either case - siding with small and medium sized businesses is going to benefit big businesses as well. Trying to pick and choose just leads to loopholes, exploits, and room for lobbyists to do their bidding.


I wonder
what else is in that bill? I've heard on mainstream media that they want to sell state owned
power plants to privately owned businesses under the same bill......what does that have to do
with the current situation? You know after awhile they will raise utility bills if that happens.


Generally speaking, privately managed and maintained services/systems tend to be cheaper than government. The city pays out the rectum for their power contracted through the government - the county, run mostly by private firms, has dirt-cheap electricity. This tiny apartment I'm in runs a higher electric bill than our whole house did (even when on electric heat in the cold). The power consumptions are substantially different - the apartment uses far less.

Selling the power plants off to private firms takes the costs of maintaining those systems out of the government and simplifies the budget (predicting and adjusting for varying energy needs and preventing short-falls is best left to its own business).




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by louieprima
Clean up after the animals. Nice. Some good patriotic hate speech ya got goin there. Love how the biggest cowards, and freedom hating sadists wrap themselves in my flag. It's a shame, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Ah well....
By the way, our new boss is the same as the old boss.


Littering is against the law whether you are protesting or not. There is no freedom to litter. They are animals as is anybody who defends their filth.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by beezzer
 


The unions have agreed to all the cuts. What is the sticking point is the governor's insistence that collective bargaining to all intents and purposes end for most state emplyees.


But they haven't agreed to the cuts, they will just renegotiate the new spending at the next contract negotiation. THATS why the gov. is saying no collective bargaining except for salaries.
Without that, the cuts are meaningless.


Nobody is telling the truth in all this. They are just howling how collective bargaining is being completely taken away which is not true as you've pointed out. They just want to be able to control the benefits packages. Why one would want somebody else to negotiate for their salary is beyond me anyway unless they have nothing to offer. Democrats are just painting the whole thing with a wide brush to make it appear unions are being done away with. They are afraid their campaign funds will dry up. That is what it's all about they care not one thing about the members of the union just the union money flowing into their coffers.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by EssenceOfSilence
 


You look closely. Those employees are also taxpayers. Their unions have agreed to all the austerity measures and cuts. The sticking point is the governor's assault on their unions.

Keep in mind, I've never been a member of a union in my life, except a military credit union. This is a manufactured crisis, from a newbie governor who wants to score big with his anti-union buddies: If this goes through, what's next for the non-government unions?

This is a bald-faced attempt to bust the unions, nothing less. It stinks and 60% of Wisconsin voters think so as well accord to the latest Pew poll. This new governor would do better attending the state's business than instigating this phony crisis for his buddies.

I'm a republican, I campaigned for Reagan and Ollie North, and I'm a vet: This idiot gives republicans a bad name.
edit on 3-3-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by EssenceOfSilence
 


You look closely. Those employees are also taxpayers. Their unions have agreed to all the austerity measures and cuts. The sticking point is the governor's assault on their unions.

Keep in mind, I've never been a member of a union in my life, except a military credit union. This is a manufactured crisis, from a newbie governor who wants to score big with his anti-union buddies: If this goes through, what's next for the non-government unions?

This is a bald-faced attempt to bust the unions, nothing less. It stinks and 60% of Wisconsin voters think so as well accord to the latest Pew poll. This new governor would do better attending the state's business than instigating this phony crisis for his buddies.

I'm a republican, I campaigned for Reagan and Ollie North, and I'm a vet: This idiot gives republicans a bad name.
edit on 3-3-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the reply.

Once the tax payer has a legitimate seat at the table they can collective bargain until the cows come home. Until the tax payer is truly represented, those negotiations amount to nothing more that theft and extortion as I said before. Unfortunately as long as unions are caught up in politics and politicians are all about the money, the tax payer will continue to be exploited against their will.

I do support collective bargaining rights for unions but I do not support public worker unions. Theft and Extortion of the people should not be allowed no matter how noble the cause.

Privatize education and there will be no need to have this discussion. We would have lots of other issues to talk about though.


By the way, Thank you for your service.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
A possible solution to giving the people a true seat at the table:

1. Switch the tax system of Wisconsin to a flat tax or use tax system that can not be exempted out of. (Make sure there are no free rides.)

2. Have all state worker collective bargaining agreements placed on the ballot at contract renewal time.

3. Put a line on each one of these to let the voter know how much of a tax increase or decrease it will be to pay for it. ( In real dollars , have a chart or something that goes with it.)

4. Have them vote yes or no.

This would take the extortion and theft out of the process and would really be a pure democratic way of doing things.

The upside of this is it would make the rest of the elected officials job a bit minuscule so you could easily justify cutting their pay in half. (It would be good punishment for not standing up for the tax payer in the first place.)




top topics
 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join