Go back under the bridge, troll. There is a bigger goat Coming

when is the last time someone referred to Obama as being courageous?

MFn G I M P on December 3, 2008 at 1:47 PM

He wasn’t brave enough to go to Georgia.

Kerry now admits to being a liberal.

They are both simple political animals. Only Obama was able to dupe a few more million idiots.

In case you failed to notice, your debate partner was referring to voting “no” *before* a union were set up at the workplace, not afterward. Covenants and responsibilities are important to most of us (I hope), but most of us consider ourselves accountable to only those entities that one is actually a part of. Until the union exists, the only accountability you have is to yourself and those institutions to which you already owe fealty. In fact, I’d venture to say that this is one of the reasons *why* there currently is a recognized right to secret ballot in union elections.

RD on December 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM

In other words: Even if you held the belief that union bosses and members owed each other “full disclosure” or some such notion, until the union exists, it’s none of the union’s *business* who voted which way, as the union leadership has no basis whatsoever for presuming any disclosure rights, nor any grievances against those who voted “no”. Nor any entitlement whatsoever to any information that could be used against those voting “no”. (Though Hacks may disagree.)

If I voted no for the union and then the union passes, how would I then be received by the union? If it fails, how would I be received by my peers who voted for it and lost?

Why shouldn’t you be accountable for your own decisions?

Whoa – accountable to *whom*?? To an affiliation that doesn’t even *exist* at the time your decision was taken??

In case you failed to notice, your debate partner was referring to voting “no” *before* a union were set up at the workplace, not afterward. Covenants and responsibilities are important to most of us (I hope), but most of us consider ourselves accountable to only those entities that one is actually a part of. Until the union exists, the only accountability you have is to yourself and those institutions to which you already owe fealty. In fact, I’d venture to say that this is one of the reasons *why* there currently is a recognized right to secret ballot in union elections. (Just pointing that out, in case the connection was lost on you entirely…)

Or is there something else big I’m missing here? Please enlighten.

A union represents everyone the same.

If I vote in a unionized organization no to something the union supports, do I get blackballed? Prop 8 is a great example of how your life can be destroyed by thugs who know what you do or don’t support.

Boo hoo.

DeathToMediaHacks on December 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM

No, bingo.

“A union represents everyone the same” – you’d be wiser to stop parroting the party line and respond to the *actual points* brought up by your interlocutor. He just made it crystal clear that unions have engaged in a lot more than mere “representation”, including and not limited to intimidation, retaliation, discrimination, favoritism, nepotism, and other dangerous -ations and -isms. Anything to say about any of that, or is this particular individual right just not that interesting to you?

…expect a long, agonizing evening of watching the blue counties roll in and slowly wash away the margin.

Actually, it must have been an agonizingly short evening for you when this didn’t materialize, eh? Sorry that your fluffy, stuffed Eeyore was kicked to the curb.

Somebody should set up a site to smooth over any hard feelings: From 57 to 42.

Jim Treacher on December 3, 2008 at 1:44 AM

Well, that’s a good idea. It’s amazing how quickly that “52 to 48″ feeling of tingly love and brotherhood and sisterhood evaporated, eh? Maybe a better idea would be a “From 42 to 57, with love” site, to keep up those good feelings.

when is the last time someone referred to Obama as being courageous?

MFn G I M P on December 3, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Never, but I can think of a time that a Democrat called him out as “not politically courageous.”

Good news from Georgia….

Then Sarah came in Monday, and Chambliss won by 14 points on Tuesday.

Yeah, she was a HUGE benefit to Chambliss, and he is confirming it today.

Sarah is a star.

Do you know how things work now? Unions get enough card signatures to unionize and then there must be a THREE MONTH period between that and the silent vote where management can doo all kinds of things like fire those who organized, intimidate workers who signed cards, etc. etc. The “secret ballot” protects management not workers. The law should be that if you sign the card and you are willing to say you signed the card, then you are in the union. Period. If enough people do that and publicaly say “I want a union” then the place should be unionized.

Hypothetically, the secret ballot protects the workers, not the management and the union. Card check, unlike the secret ballot, makes it clear who is for the unions and who is against the unions, so management and the organizers can intimidate people into voting a certain way. Ironically, only the unions are in favor of card check. This is because laws (as well as awful PR) prevents management from intimidating workers, threatening their jobs over their vote, etc. However, the unions are still allowed to intimidate away. The whole practice is a ploy to get more union dues and therefore more money for Dem. candidates.

How is that a basic right again?

You really have that little basic civic knowledge?? Let me try to explain… We live in this thing called a democracy, and one of the rights is to have your vote kept private. People expect this from everything from their Presidential ballot to their son’s vote for freshman class treasurer to be private, so others aren’t angered and intimidated by their votes.

Why shouldn’t you be accountable for your own decisions? A union represents everyone the same.

So basically, you’d be okay with signing your name on your Presidential election ballot and then allowing your local county to keep it on record, so that everyone knows how you voted?? Because that is what we’re talking about.

Boo hoo.
You can’t explain away to rational people the lefist associations and leaning of Obama

We aren’t talking about Obama’s associations.. Frankly, I think that some of the charges in this area (outside of Ayers and Wright) are ridiculous, and that only Keyes and other fringe characters are going to keep pushing them. We’re talking about a bad policy that Obama is pushing that you are trying to defend by arguing against basic civic rights. Just like people have a right to keep their Presidential vote secret, people have a right to a secret ballot on forming a union as this will significantly impact their work life. They also have a right to vote against said union without intimidation from hired thugs. The Dems. seem not to realize that there are valid reasons for not wanting to unionize.

The “secret ballot” protects management not workers

DeathToMediaHacks on December 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM

No, the secret ballot and NLRB processes protect everyone involved. If you want to be unionized, there is a standardized process to follow. If you get the votes, you get a union. If you don’t want to be unionized, and enough vote “no,” you don’t get a union.

This “card check” mess takes away a basic protection of a secret ballot, to vote for or against a union without either management or unions finding out your stance unless you volunteer it publicly.

Your entire post was nothing but opinion; namely number 8. How you can spin taking away a person’s basic right to vote privately into something that’s beneficial to or desired by workers is beyond me. I guess you must have asked them all.

Do you know how things work now? Unions get enough card signatures to unionize and then there must be a THREE MONTH period between that and the silent vote where management can doo all kinds of things like fire those who organized, intimidate workers who signed cards, etc. etc. The “secret ballot” protects management not workers. The law should be that if you sign the card and you are willing to say you signed the card, then you are in the union. Period. If enough people do that and publicaly say “I want a union” then the place should be unionized.

That law would take that basic right away.

How is that a basic right again?

If I voted no for the union and then the union passes, how would I then be received by the union? If it fails, how would I be received by my peers who voted for it and lost?

Why shouldn’t you be accountable for your own decisions? A union represents everyone the same.

If I vote in a unionized organization no to something the union supports, do I get blackballed? Prop 8 is a great example of how your life can be destroyed by thugs who know what you do or don’t support.

Boo hoo.
You can’t explain away to rational people the lefist associations and leaning of Obama

OneVision on December 3, 2008 at 11:37 AM

Send letters and hold his feet to the fire. And good job down there.

DeathToMediaHacks on December 3, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Your entire post was nothing but opinion; namely number 8. How you can spin taking away a person’s basic right to vote privately into something that’s beneficial to or desired by workers is beyond me. I guess you must have asked them all.
In non-union organizations a person should be able to keep private, or make known if they wish, their vote to unionize or not. That law would take that basic right away. If I voted no for the union and then the union passes, how would I then be received by the union? If it fails, how would I be received by my peers who voted for it and lost? If I vote in a unionized organization no to something the union supports, do I get blackballed? Prop 8 is a great example of how your life can be destroyed by thugs who know what you do or don’t support.

You can’t explain away to rational people the lefist associations and leaning of Obama.

This Georgian is savoring today what may the sole bright spot for our party this year. I am proud of my state, and I was glad to have voted in this runoff election.

However, whether Saxby lives up to his conservative billing remains to be seen. I was not keen on his positions on immigration, his participation in the “Gang of 10″ on drilling, and his having voted for the bailout. But certainly I prefer Saxby to what would have been the alternative.

Just vote no to all Dem bills and go play golf.

Good for him.

1. Obama said he ’sought out marxist professors’

OMG. How dare Barack Obama demonstrate intellectual curiosity while at an institution of higher learning. I mean, how DARE he. This isn’t America. You can’t pursue something intellectually in your 20s and then accept people to believe that in your late 40s you may think differently about it than you did while in college? Once you read a book with the work “Marx” on it you are tainted for life. That’s it.

I’m sorry but that is what you’re advocating here. So the man sought out Marxist professors. No one who he has appointed to any position thus far could be described as anything CLOSE to a marxist. Obama ran to the right of Clinton on healthcare and education during the primary. He has been running on a centrist message since then and clearly his cabinet picks represent a diversity of opinion, from the right to the left. It’s EXACTLY what he said he was going to do. Why is that less important than what classes he took as an undergrad?

Obama’s mentor was the pedo Frank Marshall Davis

Um, are you kidding? Are you claiming Obama knew Frank Marshall Davis was a pedophile when he was a child? Is the claim that Obama was indoctrinated into communism by Frank Marshall Davis. Is there a shred of evidence to any of that? What was the nature of the “mentorship”.

3. He launched his political career in the home of Marxist/Maoist William “the bomber” ayers

So? And I’m not saying so about William Ayers, guys a douche. Obama may have attended a dinner at Ayers house. But Obama’s political career was borne out of his own work and organizing. First for state senate, then in a failed congressional race in 2000 and then by clearing the table, Daley style, in more than one election. Is that “marxist”? Or just old school rough and tumble politics. William Ayers didn’t make Obama forge relationships with Emil Jones. William Ayers did not push Obama onto the stage at the 2004 convention and William Ayers did not right the speech that got the netroots excited about Obama. William Ayers didn’t fundraise, develop the grassroots organisation or, in any way, shape policy in what Obama proposed during the campaign. Here’s the big point. You MAY have an argument about judgement. But you’re trying to prove Obama IS a marxist. And that’s just not borne out by the Ayers connection.

4. I don’t consider forced community service (his ‘young pioneers’ crud to be supportive of individuality

Um well for one thing, no such law has been signed into law yet, so you need to pump your brakes.

5. He voted against protecting homeowners who use a firearm to defend themselves and their family.

That’s not a marxist vs. capitalist issue though.

6. He publically stated he want’s to “spread the wealth around”. Hey deathtomediahacks.. Whip out your communist manifesto and borrow someone’s copy of the Federalist Papers and Constitution.. Which one has “Spread the wealth around” in it.

I will conceede that his stance is more to the left of Republicans. But Obama is talking about an increase on the top 5% of three percent. Three. Percent. That’s no where near what tax rates where in the 60s and 70s. That’s exactly where they were under the Clinton Administration. Is HE a marxist too? You may think that tax increases are good or bad for the economy. But this isn’t a large tax increase, it’s a very small one, it’s not so far from the tax rate John McCain one supported. I’m not sure if you can call McCain right wing, but he’s no marxist.

Now about the “spread the wealth” quote itself. The U.S. has had a progressive tax system for a very long time. And while we have a lot of (bad) amateur historians here. Without the progressive tax rate it would have been impossible to fund the massive expansion of government that occured during and after World War II that saved the U.S. economy. You see, people are correct. The New Deal didn’t work initially. It took World War II in order to really save the U.S. economy. But WHY did World War II save the U.S. economy. Because the government spent unprecedented amounts of money to back the war effort which put. people. to. work. And it also engaged in a massive propaganda campaign encouraging Americans to save. save. save, to invest in America. And then after the war what happened? The U.S. government funded the creation of the national highway system, the U.S. government funded housing loans to create the suburbs, the U.S. government paid for college education for every veteran, the U.S. government subsidized college education in general, the U.S. government formed partnership with defense manufacturers and helped them to transition to dish washer manufacturers, the preservation of the American way of life was seen as the responsibility of the government.

The “free market” did not lead to the massive expansion in wealth after world war II. Direct government intervention in the economy did and we created stable growth because we built things, instead of just buying things. I find it hilarious that so called capitalists don’t actually know where American wealth came from.

8. He is for removing the rights of workers to vote in a secret ballot. IOW, the union thugs will be able to make you vote in their presence.. Yep, that is really for individual rights ….

How odd that a law which is SUPPORTED by workers will somehow “take workers rights away.” And the people who are against this law are not the people who would have their “rights taken away” rather it’s management. Which has suddenly become a worker’s rights advocacy group? I’m not that daft and I certainly hope that you are not that daft.
If a person signs a union membership card, then they want to be in a union.

Update: What would black turnout have been like if The One had campaigned personally for Martin?

The One cares only for himself. Don’t look for him putting ouch much effort to help anyone else.