Did you even read the article? Internet access has not been cutoff (especially by Walker - the accusation is beyond r****ded), the security software is blocking their union website, like I'm sure it does plenty of others. HITLER!!!
He had absolutely nothing to do with the network security software. :grin: Liberals have lost their grip on reality (if they ever had it to begin with). I thought socialists were beyond such vitriolic comparisons as yours? <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/71gsnLfsbbM?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> HITLER!!!
You have clearly lost the capacity to reason. Come back to the discussion when you've calmed down a bit.
Heading off to check out the rally at the MN State Capitol in support of the Wisconsin protesters. Will let y'all know how it is.
Making comparisons to Hitler or Nazi Germany in any way is an exercise in hyperbole and stupidity. However, being unable to realize that it shouldn't generalize the entire group of people when a few people do that is stupid as well. Thus, saying the WI protesters are silly because of a few people having signs about Hitler is just as stupid as saying all TEA Partiers are silly for having racist and Hitler-related signs or calling liberals socialists. It's all stupidity, ignorance, and hyperbole to me. The way I view these WI protests is simply this: the governor is taking money from middle-class Americans and giving them to corporations. A large tax cut for corporations followed by a large cut to benefits of the middle class. Simple. Terrible. If you think it's a good idea, I disagree with you and that's that.
AYFKM?!?!?! A tax cut is the very definition of giving money if you are looking at it from a practical point of view rather than the ideological "keep your gub'mint hands off my paycheck" point of view. Cutting taxes in effect give more money to the people for whom taxes have been cut. That logic train is pretty freaking short.
short, but perverse. you're not giving money to anyone. you're allowing people to keep what they earned by the sweat of their brow. a fundamental difference. Ronald Reagan had it right.
Major you just don't get it. This isn't an ordinary policy issue to apply some generic school book theory on negotiation to. This is a knock down fight to define whether Americans will have unions in the pubic sector or even private sector, once the government unions are busted. It is about whether perhaps pensions will exist for anyone in the country or they will be something old timers will tell their kids about. It is about whether the GOP will deprive the Dems of their best supporters. It is now about whether another part of the great American group of the lower 98% will fight back against the Koch's and Walls Street and the status quo. The sides understand what is at stake though you seem to view this as an ordinary revenue bill or ordinary legislation. You just don't get it. Try to use your imagination or read some labor history or something. Again please try to come up with at least one example from history in which a losing fight (and I don't think it will be a losing fight for the state workers) turned the tide. Perhaps the Alamo?
FL and IN GOP Governors have now seen the mess Walker has started and called off votes on union busting bills. OH, ID and MT are starting to see workers stand up to republican union busting bills. And a new poll shows 61% of the country stand with the teachers of WI.
A good question What needs to happen is for people start to understand that there is an assault against the middle class going on right now...and it ain't coming from the government.
Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. If you are not willing to pay the price, I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.
Not surprisingly, everyone's favorite libertarian oligarchs the Koch brothers gave considerable financial support to the Walker campaign.
Your civilized society is broke and has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. **** it. “The unions are big money.” Peter Suderman | February 22, 2011 At this point, the liberal tactic of painting just about every domestic policy battle as a fight between the big corporate money guys and the poor, powerless little people has been used so often that it’s starting to seem like some sort of twitch. You can see this on display all over in coverage and commentary about the protests in Wisconsin. See, for example, Paul Krugman’s column today, in which he asserts that “anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.” The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney shoots this down rather neatly: The unions are big money. Five of the top ten contributors to congressional and presidential campaigns since 1989 are labor unions according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the last election, 10 of the top 20 PACs were union PACs. More importantly, it's not as if Big Labor is balancing out the rest of "big money." Does Krugman know that all of the top ten industries contributing to the 2010 elections gave more money to Democrats than to Republicans? That's right: Lawyers, Health Professionals, Securities & Investment, Real Estate, Insurance, Lobbyists, Pharma, Government Unions, Entertainment, and Electric Utilities all favored Democrats in 2010. In other words, a lot of the “big corporate money” spent on political donations in 2010—the money to which unions are supposedly providing a counterweight—went to the same party that most of the union money went to, and the party whose political machine has helped back the union-led protests. So I might suggest a different way of thinking about who’s really on the other side of public-sector union power plays: It’s taxpayers. Nationwide, estimates suggest states will be stuck with $82 billion in shortfalls just this year—perhaps quite a bit more. And there are long-term problems too: Wisconsin faces not just a broken budget this year, but $77 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, the fourth largest unfunded pension liability in the nation. Either the public compensation system will have to be reformed, or taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Who’s really in need of a counterweight here? Paul Krugman epitomizes the current liberal divorce from reality By: Timothy P. Carney 02/21/11 4:34 PM Senior Political Columnist One reason liberals get so excited about the protests and teacher strikes in Wisconsin is that they see this as a battle to preserve the power of the working man -- a noble cause and one many liberals take very seriously. If you squint just right, you can see it their way: Republicans are fighting to take away collective bargaining rights from unions, who are responding with protest and solidarity. Of course, this blurs the crucial distinction between private-sector unions and government-sector unions. When it comes to stubbornly blurring economic reality so as to demonize your political rivals, you can often count on Paul Krugman. In his column today, Krugman describes the unions as a "counterweight to the political power of big money." But the unions are big money. Five of the top ten contributors to congressional and presidential campaigns since 1989 are labor unions according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the last election, 10 of the top 20 PACs were union PACs. More importantly, it's not as if Big Labor is balancing out the rest of "big money." Does Krugman know that all of the top ten industries contributing to the 2010 elections gave more money to Democrats than to Republicans? That's right: Lawyers, Health Professionals, Securities & Investment, Real Estate, Insurance, Lobbyists, Pharma, Government Unions, Entertainment, and Electric Utilities all favored Democrats in 2010. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...current-liberal-divorce-reality#ixzz1EnCQnZIO
My civilized society is broke as a direct result of tax breaks being given mostly to wealthy people over the last three decades. F*** it is right, but not at all in the way you mean it.