Douchenozzle Hall of Shame
Started by Zimbochick, Feb 17 2011 04:33 PM
244 replies to this topic
#49
PERM BANNED
-
- Members
-
- 2,012 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 23 February 2011 - 05:53 PM
http://motherjones.c...nsin-protesters
On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building—something that didn't end up happening—one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."
From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."
Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.
Live annunciation? It's scary that there are people holding elected offices that think that way. What we don't need is another Kent State. Haven't we learned anything since those days?
Don't throw rocks at armed soldiers or set fire to multiple government buildings.
Beta male, and chubby incel doing what I do best...
#51
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 23 February 2011 - 06:39 PM
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Ym4FwaKaY&feature=player_embedded[/url]
To their credit, Gallup conducted the poll in Chinese, so the results were printed right to left on the page. This was just a translation error.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#52
PERM BANNED
-
- Members
-
- 2,012 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 23 February 2011 - 06:43 PM
The good news out of Wisconsin is that public school students' test scores skyrocketed last week, mystifying educators. The bad news is many student-teacher love affairs were hard-hit without access to janitors' closets and locker rooms.
Democrats are acting as if Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's demand that public sector employees give up collective bargaining would have George Washington rolling in his grave (a clear violation of Gravediggers' Local 803 regulations concerning the rolling of the dead).
In fact, government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize.
The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.
Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.
Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."
Democratic politicians don't think of themselves as "management." They don't respond to union demands for more money by saying, "Are you kidding me?" They say, "Great -- get me a raise too!"
Democrats buy the votes of government workers with generous pay packages and benefits -- paid for by someone else -- and then expect a kickback from the unions in the form of hefty campaign donations, rent-a-mobs and questionable union political activity when they run for re-election.
In 2006, 10,000 public employees staged a rally outside the New Jersey State House to protest the mere discussion of a cut to their gold-plated salaries and benefits. Then-Gov. Jon Corzine leapt onto the stage shouting: "We will fight for a fair contract!"
Only later, someone noticed: Wait -- isn't he management? (It takes a special kind of courage to promise 10,000 crazed union agitators that you'll fight to get them more money.)
Service Employees International Union officials openly threaten California legislators. At a 2009 legislative hearing, an SEIU member sneered into a microphone: "We helped to getchu into office, and we gotta good memory. Come November, if you don't back our program, we'll getchu out of office."
It used to be widely understood that collective bargaining has no place in government employment. In 1937, the American president beloved by liberals, FDR, warned that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service." George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO for a quarter century, said unions were not appropriate for civil servants. As recently as 1978, the vast majority of states prohibited unionization of government employees.
Anytime there is the slightest suggestion that perhaps in the middle of a deep recession, public school teachers should pay 1.5 percent of their salaries toward their extravagant health care plans for their entire families, suddenly we get television ads of hard-working men doing dangerous jobs on docks and in foundries while being abused by their greedy capitalist overseers.
The unions must be desperately hoping that no one will notice ... Wait a minute! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TEACHERS! This isn't the Discovery Channel's "Dirty Jobs" -- it's Mrs. Cooper's seventh-grade "values clarification" class.
With heavy union dues, labor has plenty of money to pay for propaganda and to threaten and bribe politicians.
On his first day in office, the Republican governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, signed an executive order denying public sector employees the right to bargain collectively -- something that had been granted, naturally, by a Democratic governor.
As a result, Indiana government employees instantly got to take home an extra thousand dollars that no longer went to union dues -- and good employees started getting raises, while bad employees got cashiered.
But government workers think the job of everyone else in the economy is to protect their high salaries, crazy work rules and obscene pensions. They self-righteously lecture us about public service, the children, a "living wage" -- all in the service of squeezing more money from the taxpayer to fund their breathtakingly selfish job arrangements.
There's never a recession if you work for the government. The counties with the highest per capita income aren't near New York City or Los Angeles -- they're in the Washington, D.C., area -- a one-company town where the company is the government. The three counties with the highest incomes in the entire country are all suburbs of Washington. Eleven of the 25 counties with the highest incomes are near Washington.
For decades now, the Democrats have had a good gig buying the votes of government workers with outrageous salaries, benefits and work rules -- and then sticking productive earners with the bill. But, now, we're out of money, no matter how long Wisconsin Democrats hide out in Illinois.
Democrats are acting as if Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's demand that public sector employees give up collective bargaining would have George Washington rolling in his grave (a clear violation of Gravediggers' Local 803 regulations concerning the rolling of the dead).
In fact, government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize.
The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.
Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.
Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."
Democratic politicians don't think of themselves as "management." They don't respond to union demands for more money by saying, "Are you kidding me?" They say, "Great -- get me a raise too!"
Democrats buy the votes of government workers with generous pay packages and benefits -- paid for by someone else -- and then expect a kickback from the unions in the form of hefty campaign donations, rent-a-mobs and questionable union political activity when they run for re-election.
In 2006, 10,000 public employees staged a rally outside the New Jersey State House to protest the mere discussion of a cut to their gold-plated salaries and benefits. Then-Gov. Jon Corzine leapt onto the stage shouting: "We will fight for a fair contract!"
Only later, someone noticed: Wait -- isn't he management? (It takes a special kind of courage to promise 10,000 crazed union agitators that you'll fight to get them more money.)
Service Employees International Union officials openly threaten California legislators. At a 2009 legislative hearing, an SEIU member sneered into a microphone: "We helped to getchu into office, and we gotta good memory. Come November, if you don't back our program, we'll getchu out of office."
It used to be widely understood that collective bargaining has no place in government employment. In 1937, the American president beloved by liberals, FDR, warned that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service." George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO for a quarter century, said unions were not appropriate for civil servants. As recently as 1978, the vast majority of states prohibited unionization of government employees.
Anytime there is the slightest suggestion that perhaps in the middle of a deep recession, public school teachers should pay 1.5 percent of their salaries toward their extravagant health care plans for their entire families, suddenly we get television ads of hard-working men doing dangerous jobs on docks and in foundries while being abused by their greedy capitalist overseers.
The unions must be desperately hoping that no one will notice ... Wait a minute! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TEACHERS! This isn't the Discovery Channel's "Dirty Jobs" -- it's Mrs. Cooper's seventh-grade "values clarification" class.
With heavy union dues, labor has plenty of money to pay for propaganda and to threaten and bribe politicians.
On his first day in office, the Republican governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, signed an executive order denying public sector employees the right to bargain collectively -- something that had been granted, naturally, by a Democratic governor.
As a result, Indiana government employees instantly got to take home an extra thousand dollars that no longer went to union dues -- and good employees started getting raises, while bad employees got cashiered.
But government workers think the job of everyone else in the economy is to protect their high salaries, crazy work rules and obscene pensions. They self-righteously lecture us about public service, the children, a "living wage" -- all in the service of squeezing more money from the taxpayer to fund their breathtakingly selfish job arrangements.
There's never a recession if you work for the government. The counties with the highest per capita income aren't near New York City or Los Angeles -- they're in the Washington, D.C., area -- a one-company town where the company is the government. The three counties with the highest incomes in the entire country are all suburbs of Washington. Eleven of the 25 counties with the highest incomes are near Washington.
For decades now, the Democrats have had a good gig buying the votes of government workers with outrageous salaries, benefits and work rules -- and then sticking productive earners with the bill. But, now, we're out of money, no matter how long Wisconsin Democrats hide out in Illinois.
Beta male, and chubby incel doing what I do best...
#54
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 23 February 2011 - 06:53 PM
Teachers do make outrageous salaries...outrageously bad salaries for the amount of work we expect of them and the importance of the task that they have. I can support some criticisms of teachers unions, but the idea that they get paid too much or are just getting too good of a deal is NOT one of them.
Also, and this is a random thought, now that unions and corporations are "people" with "rights", thanks to Justice Kennedy and the Corporate Four, there's an important point to be made. You can't outlaw a company. Democrats may be able to regulate, but they can't just outright BAN something like Halliburton. Yet the GOP is going to town trying to ban unions. This isn't about money for budgets; it's about money for elections. SO, we'll end up with corporations giving to Republicans and unions giving to noone, because they're outlawed. Personally, I don't think either should be able to give money, but leave it to Republicans to create a system that benefits only them. They've created their own welfare state...corporate money for the welfare of GOP candidates and office holders, and at the expense of the middle class, poor, and labor in general.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#55
PERM BANNED
-
- Members
-
- 2,012 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 23 February 2011 - 07:00 PM
Teachers do make outrageous salaries...outrageously bad salaries for the amount of work we expect of them and the importance of the task that they have. I can support some criticisms of teachers unions, but the idea that they get paid too much or are just getting too good of a deal is NOT one of them.
Also, and this is a random thought, now that unions and corporations are "people" with "rights", thanks to Justice Kennedy and the Corporate Four, there's an important point to be made. You can't outlaw a company. Democrats may be able to regulate, but they can't just outright BAN something like Halliburton. Yet the GOP is going to town trying to ban unions. This isn't about money for budgets; it's about money for elections. SO, we'll end up with corporations giving to Republicans and unions giving to noone, because they're outlawed. Personally, I don't think either should be able to give money, but leave it to Republicans to create a system that benefits only them. They've created their own welfare state...corporate money for the welfare of GOP candidates and office holders, and at the expense of the middle class, poor, and labor in general.
I agree with you. But let's make sure we have all our facts straight. Which presidential candidate in 2008 received more funds from corporations? Which candidate received more than any other in history? Which one provided and continues to provide money for failed corporations. And before you say the President doesn't control or pass such policies, you're right. Who controlled congress when the bailouts occured? Democrats are not the enemy of corporations, not by a long shot. And don't make this into an issue totally about collective barganing. It's about government employees. I am a government employee and I oppose unionization full heartedly. Government employees incur all the protections of public service and have very little downfalls compared to those who work in the private sector.
Beta male, and chubby incel doing what I do best...
#56
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 23 February 2011 - 07:22 PM
Teachers do make outrageous salaries...outrageously bad salaries for the amount of work we expect of them and the importance of the task that they have. I can support some criticisms of teachers unions, but the idea that they get paid too much or are just getting too good of a deal is NOT one of them.
Also, and this is a random thought, now that unions and corporations are "people" with "rights", thanks to Justice Kennedy and the Corporate Four, there's an important point to be made. You can't outlaw a company. Democrats may be able to regulate, but they can't just outright BAN something like Halliburton. Yet the GOP is going to town trying to ban unions. This isn't about money for budgets; it's about money for elections. SO, we'll end up with corporations giving to Republicans and unions giving to noone, because they're outlawed. Personally, I don't think either should be able to give money, but leave it to Republicans to create a system that benefits only them. They've created their own welfare state...corporate money for the welfare of GOP candidates and office holders, and at the expense of the middle class, poor, and labor in general.
I agree with you. But let's make sure we have all our facts straight. Which presidential candidate in 2008 received more funds from corporations? Which candidate received more than any other in history? Which one provided and continues to provide money for failed corporations. And before you say the President doesn't control or pass such policies, you're right. Who controlled congress when the bailouts occured? Democrats are not the enemy of corporations, not by a long shot. And don't make this into an issue totally about collective barganing. It's about government employees. I am a government employee and I oppose unionization full heartedly. Government employees incur all the protections of public service and have very little downfalls compared to those who work in the private sector.
No candidate received money from corporations in 2008 because it was still illegal at that time. I certainly agree that money has FAR too large an influence in our politics, on both sides and I've been very critical of our two party system, the two party stranglehold on the FEC that prevents REAL political competition, and the efforts of both parties to prevent REAL reform. But the corporate money to candidates is an issue that came out of the courts. So, now, if unions and corporations can give directly to candidates, we have a problem because only unions can be banned by governments that oppose them whereas there's no support for the idea that you can ban a business. So, corporations now get to speak for their workers, even though their workers might disagree. Ban the unions and allow a very one-sided type of speech. Whether Dems benefit or not from corporate money isn't the point. The point is that you have money coming from the perspective of a CEO but not of those in the middle or lower classes. This problem already exists, in that very few in teh middle class or below can afford the maximum contributions to campaigns the way the rich can. Now, the problem is exacerbated. There are FAR more companies than unions. The union portion of the American workforce is around 10% --- a third what it once was --- and people who have non-management positions will now have less of a voice in our political system as they are outcontributed not just by rich families who might give $10,000 to a candidate's campaign ($2500 for both the primary and then general, doubled for a married couple), in addition to the other $70,000 they're permitted to give to parties and PACs...again doubled for a married couple. Overall, a rich family can give over $200,000 during an election year. I'm sure most don't come close, but that's where the legal limits lie. Now...how much can that union family give? I'm sure it depends on their convictions and whatnot, but it's a heluva lot less. And, now, since corporations can give, that voice will be further hidden under the gifts of businesses...even more so as we ban unions from existence. So, yes, it will go to Democrats as well as Republicans. And that makes it even worse because you end up making the voice of common people, at least in term of the all powerful influence of money in our politics, a minimal part.
I am also a government employee. I am also not in a union. And yet, despite that fact, our state government still finds cause to cut funds, demand changes to how we teach, and so forth.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#57
PERM BANNED
-
- Members
-
- 2,012 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 23 February 2011 - 07:39 PM
Obama: http://www.opensecre...=12&goButt2.y=8
McCain : http://www.opensecre...8&cid=N00006424
McCain's largest supporter listed there was smaller than Obama's smallest.
McCain : http://www.opensecre...8&cid=N00006424
McCain's largest supporter listed there was smaller than Obama's smallest.
Beta male, and chubby incel doing what I do best...
#58
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 23 February 2011 - 07:48 PM
^^ guy has been fired.
Just a quick update:
Here's a story about the guy getting canned. In it, I'd like to focus on this quote from him, regarding his treatment:
"I think this whole situation is a bit ridiculous. Public employees don't lose their own First Amendment rights, especially on their own time and own resources by virtue of their public employment," he was quoted as saying. "I think we're getting down a slippery slope here in terms of silencing people who disagree."
Now, there are two points I'd like to make this comment. First, and most obviously, the idea that "silencing" him is a slippery slope, while he advocates using deadly force against peaceful protesters is beyond laughable.
But the larger point I'd make is that, once again, we have someone with no clear idea of what the first amendment means with regard to free speech. Most obviously, the first amendment is to prevent government from restricting speech or punishing it, without just cause. In this situation, the Indiana AGs office didn't "ban" his speech. And while his speech is being punished, it's not being punished in a way that we'd think of as constitutionally questionable. Were he arrested and/or prosecuted for protected free speech, then THAT would be the situation in which a free speech argument could be made. That would be the government using its power to punish speech in an unconstitutional fashion. On the other hand, in this case that is NOT what is happening. Government isn't prosecuting speech. Government is firing an employee whose otherwise private life entered the public forum and acted in what we can deem an irresponsible manner. He didn't "lose his First Amendment rights". He exercised them and was not arrested or prosecuted for doing so. However, his employer felt his conduct was damaging and fired him. This happens ALL THE TIME in private industry. You can't badmouth your company or boss on a public forum, be found out, and expect no repercussions. His boss just happens to be part of government. Can we honestly expect that, if tomorrow Speaker Boehner's secretary was commenting on public forums about how he loves to get all coked up and bang illegal immigrants while waiting for the INS to arrive that that person wouldn't be fired? Of COURSE they'd be fired...and rightly so.
God damn I'm sick of people not having a clue how the Constitution works, all the while claiming that others are trampling on it.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#59
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 23 February 2011 - 07:52 PM
Obama: http://www.opensecre...=12&goButt2.y=8
McCain : http://www.opensecre...8&cid=N00006424
McCain's largest supporter listed there was smaller than Obama's smallest.
It says right at the top that the organizations themselves did not donate.
And if this was posted in critical response to what I wrote...well, then I have my doubts that you read what I wrote because I have a big problem with PAC money, too. The point was that now this problem will be even worse. We'll have two corporatist parties (to a greater extent that we currently do, which is bad enough) and a weakened voice for workers.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#60
cousin it
-
- Members
-
- 3,863 posts
Members
Posted 24 February 2011 - 12:27 AM
Don't throw rocks at armed soldiers or set fire to multiple government buildings.
Jesus Fucking Christ! At the time that the murders opened fire on he students, there were no bottles being thrown, nor buildings being burned. for the most part the students had disassembled. But what the fuck if there had been? Should that fascist fuck Rhodes employed the same tactics that are now being deployed by Khaddafi?
That whole episode is a criminal stain on this country... one that has escaped justice.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
