Wisconsin Senate passes resolution calling for Democrats to be taken into police custody

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Let me break it down for you?

1) unions embrace higher taxes, thus the higher taxes increase those Union wages...and add Union employment.
2) Those higher Union wages mean more tax payer burden
3) The wages from unions increase, and the " dues " are still collected
4) Those " dues " that are collected from the Union employees, that is paid by the tax payer are redistributed to the Democratic party.

A simple break down.


In 2010, America's top 20 labor unions gave more than $68 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates -- with 94 percent of the total going to Democrats




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
NO, the US constitution is supreme law of the land

If the state wants to compel them they must first file suit - they can attempt to file them, dock them or recall them, but they cannot seize them or arrest them because it makes you feel better. Again, see the forth
and the ninth - have a nice day


Actually, as we covered earlier, the State legislature, according to the Wisconson constitution, "may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide." They obviously cannot defy the 4th ammendment, but there are ways to compell attendance without violating the 4th ammendment.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Last sentence...right? Let's do the last two to keep the context.


A similar trend can be seen in state and local political campaigns. Fifteen unions gave at least $1 million to Democrats during the 2008 and 2010 campaigns. Combined, their donations totaled more than $206 million, of which fully 91 percent went to Democrats.


So combined Unions donated $206 million to candidates....OF WHICH 91 percent went to Democrats...9 percent went to other parties.

You claimed that Democrats got over 90% of their funding from Unions...this is NOT what this is saying. It is saying out of all contributions that come from Unions...over 90% goes to Democrats.

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.



No where does it say that 91% of Democrats contributions came from Unions. Please just admit you are wrong.
edit on 3-3-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Don't need to break it down for me. I was mearly pointing out that you and MindSpin were saying the same thing regarding this > 90% stuff. I sensed a bit of confusion in the point counterpoint and was trying to clear it up.
edit on 3-3-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





NO, the US constitution is supreme law of the land


That much I agree on, but as I have said numerous times, Article 1 Section 5 of the US constitution determines the ongoings within the legislative branch.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Actually, you just supported what MindSpin was saying... > 90% of the Union contributions went to democrats. I think it came across earlier that you were saying that democrats get >90% of their funding from unions.. totally differant..



He is wrong...but won't admit it.

Common on ATS.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
... as I have said numerous times, Article 1 Section 5 of the US constitution determines the ongoings within the legislative branch.


Which in this case is moot anyway, since the verbiage is identical to that of the Wisconson constitution. *shrug*



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


No, I am sorry to inform you that I am not wrong. Ive seen you before, you twist and manipulate information to best suit your argument. Classic actions of a troll~

Some people you cant help~ ( shaking head )



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
He is wrong...but won't admit it.

Common on ATS.


But he's saying the same thing you are?

Albeit, I agree this comment is misleading...


Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I have a problem with people making to much money, especially when those funds obtained by the Unions in Fact pay over 90% of the Democratic parties lobbying agenda.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by rogerstigers
 



punish for contempt and disorderly behavior



I would think, that tucking tail and running would amount to childish " behavior" would it not? Or at the very least, not actions becoming of a State rep.
edit on 3-3-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)


Abstaining from a vote is not child-like behavior. Non-participation is also an important political statement.

If the people who elected the reps aren't happy then there are recall provisions.

Why do you think they have the rule which states one member of the party has to be present? They could have written the law a different way, let's say giving each side notice. But no, it was written a very specific way. Walker seems not to like this law and is trying to use police force to get around it.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by MindSpin
 


No, I am sorry to inform you that I am not wrong. Ive seen you before, you twist and manipulate information to best suit your argument. Classic actions of a troll~

Some people you cant help~ ( shaking head )


Your original statement:


I have a problem with people making to much money, especially when those funds obtained by the Unions in Fact pay over 90% of the Democratic parties lobbying agenda.


You are saying: Unions pay over 90% of Democratic parties lobbying agenda.

To prove it, you provided this source:


Union political support for Democrats is a trend that has been in place for decades, and it shows no signs of abating. In 2010, America's top 20 labor unions gave more than $68 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates -- with 94 percent of the total going to Democrats and just 4 percent to Republicans. Most of the total -- 88 percent -- came from political action committees (PACs) associated with those 20 unions, and the remaining 12 percent came from individual union members. A similar trend can be seen in state and local political campaigns. Fifteen unions gave at least $1 million to Democrats during the 2008 and 2010 campaigns. Combined, their donations totaled more than $206 million, of which fully 91 percent went to Democrats.


This says that out of contributions Unions give, over 90% go to Democrats. However it does not say that Democrats get over 90% of their funding from Unions.

Unless you think that Democrats only got 226 million (91% of 226 is 206) in contributions for the 2008 and 2010 elections




I know it is hard to admit you were wrong...but it is the right thing to do.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Its disgusting and repulsive that they are still able to call themselves representatives of the people when they refuse to do so..



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 





Abstaining from a vote is not child-like behavior. Non-participation is also an important political statement.


BWAHAHAH!!!!! Not participating form their job is a political statement? Hey why not try that at your job, and tell me how that works out for ya?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 





This says that out of contributions Unions give, over 90% go to Democrats. However it does not say that Democrats get over 90% of their funding from Unions.


Why not re-read your post, then come back and talk to us grown ups!



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 

So, in your perfect world, the Democratic party would be starved of funds, leaving only one party. Sort of sounds like the U.S.S.R., China, and Hitlers Germany. Thar are advantages to one party rule.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PresumedInnocent
 


There are many and plenty of lobbyists that support the Democratic party, not having Unions would not make a difference in the contributions they receive.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Way to go Wisconsin! A big SEIG HEIL to you and your NAZI govenor! How dare anyone expect to engage in good faith collective bargaining in your Koch brothers run state! Heil Herr Walker! An extra ration of beets and black bread for all of you Comrades supporting Comrade Walker and the illustrious Koch brothers! Send the dissidents to a FEMA camp Gulag! Long live Comrade Napolitano!



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Daughter2
 





Abstaining from a vote is not child-like behavior. Non-participation is also an important political statement.


BWAHAHAH!!!!! Not participating form their job is a political statement? Hey why not try that at your job, and tell me how that works out for ya?


Not voting doesn't mean they aren't working. I'm sure they are on the phone and meeting with people. They are way from their homes and families too.

And yes, not voting sends a message and does effect the outcome. It's just as important as a yes or no vote.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Show us proof of paid demonstrators instead of parroting crap that was fed to you by a MSM outlet.

Show us PROOF.


I do have some articles other then MSM, but I don't know what would meet your specification, usually, no one wins these arguments, no matter what evidence I may present.

So I usually don't beat dead horses


I'm sensing a chain email or a right wing blog as your source.


Am I right?


I have never posted a chain email BTW.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Janky Red
 





NO, the US constitution is supreme law of the land


That much I agree on, but as I have said numerous times, Article 1 Section 5 of the US constitution determines the ongoings within the legislative branch.


The US constitution protects the individual 1st and foremost, detainment or seizure of the individual Senators
without using the court system is unconstitutional

The fourth protects the senators

the

ninth bars the state, FOX and your assertion

edit on 3-3-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join