PDA

View Full Version : Democratic icon endorses Scott Walker's position!



LWW
02-23-2011, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of pubic employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>- Franklin Delano Roosevelt - (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/feb/18/fdr-vs-wisconsin-teachers/)</span></div></div>

LWW

Qtec
02-23-2011, 04:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FDR may have had that opinion at that time, but times and opinions do change as situations change. FDR originally did not want to get involved in WWII. FDR did not want African Americans flying airplanes either, until he was convinced by his wife Eleanor to change his mind and found the Tuskegee Airmen. This was only one of the opinions he changed as the years went by, and the letter you refer to may have been his opinion at that time but does not preclude a possible change of attitude in later years. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>1937 America was a very different place than 2011 America, therefore it would be impossible to predict FDR's attitude regarding public unions now. </span></div></div>

Q

LWW
02-23-2011, 04:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another non-post.

Q </div></div>


LWW

LWW
02-23-2011, 04:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>

LWW

Qtec
02-23-2011, 04:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>1937 America was a very different place than 2011 America, therefore it would be impossible to predict FDR's attitude regarding public unions now. </span></div></div>

link (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=337999#Post337999)

Q

LWW
02-23-2011, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another non-post.

Q </div></div>

LWW

Stretch
02-23-2011, 06:27 AM
This must be the Comedy hour hereing a Republican cry about paralizing Government by those who have sworn to support it. St.

Sev
02-23-2011, 08:15 AM
Just think if WI passes its bill the funds for the democrat party will dry up.

Do you really think this is about the workers. This is about political power bought by money and one party standing to loose it.

Soflasnapper
02-23-2011, 02:24 PM
This is a comment about Federal workers, not state workers, over which FDR had no control. States may do things the federal government should not. Find a quote from FDR about state workers' collective bargaining, or realize you have not found him commenting on these current situations at all.

pooltchr
02-23-2011, 02:54 PM
Government workers are government workers. The same principles would apply to state employees as federal employees, just on a more local scale.

Steve

LWW
02-23-2011, 04:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a comment about Federal workers, not state workers, over which FDR had no control. States may do things the federal government should not. Find a quote from FDR about state workers' collective bargaining, or realize you have not found him commenting on these current situations at all. </div></div>

Perhaps you can quote what part makes you believe this?

What's that?

You made it up to support the regime's agenda?

I already knew that.

LWW

LWW
02-23-2011, 04:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a comment about Federal workers, not state workers, over which FDR had no control. States may do things the federal government should not. Find a quote from FDR about state workers' collective bargaining, or realize you have not found him commenting on these current situations at all. </div></div>

What part of the following is confusing yoo?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>All Government employees</span> should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. </div></div>

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-23-2011, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a comment about Federal workers, not state workers, over which FDR had no control. States may do things the federal government should not. Find a quote from FDR about state workers' collective bargaining, or realize you have not found him commenting on these current situations at all. </div></div>

Perhaps you can quote what part makes you believe this?

What's that?

You made it up to support the regime's agenda?

I already knew that.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.</div></div>

LWW
02-24-2011, 04:29 AM
Which only shows that he was talking about state, county, s=city, and federal employees.

His emphasis at the end on federal was due to the fact that as much as FDR hated the restrictions placed on the fed by the COTUS ... he was still limited by them and therefor could not dictate to the states.

You can delude yourself into believing he thought otherwise for state and local employees, but it will be a delusion none the less ... and requires a total lapse of logic to believe in.

Next myth please?

LWW

Stretch
02-24-2011, 07:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which only shows that he was talking about state, county, s=city, and federal employees.

His emphasis at the end on federal was due to the fact that as much as FDR hated the restrictions placed on the fed by the COTUS ... he was still limited by them and therefor could not dictate to the states.

You can delude yourself into believing he thought otherwise for state and local employees, but it will be a delusion none the less ... and requires a total lapse of logic to believe in.

Next myth please?

LWW </div></div>

You call that a disclaimer? lol St.

LWW
02-24-2011, 07:34 AM
I call it literacy and intellectual integrity.

OTOH, the cabal pursues a belief system where "TRUTH" is whatever the party tells them it is today.

LWW

JohnnyD
02-24-2011, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I call it literacy and intellectual integrity.

OTOH, the cabal pursues a belief system where "TRUTH" is whatever the party tells them it is today.

LWW </div></div>Fact &gt; Literacy and intellectual integrity are the truth.

LWW
02-24-2011, 07:37 AM
Preach on JohnnyD.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-25-2011, 03:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which only shows that he was talking about state, county, s=city, and federal employees.

His emphasis at the end on federal was due to the fact that as much as FDR hated the restrictions placed on the fed by the COTUS ... he was still limited by them and therefor could not dictate to the states.

You can delude yourself into believing he thought otherwise for state and local employees, but it will be a delusion none the less ... and requires a total lapse of logic to believe in.

Next myth please?

LWW </div></div>

I point out that his remarks are silent as to whether employees of governmental bodies other than the federal government are warranted or not.

You are the one who claims these limited remarks ALSO PROVE he opposed unionization at smaller governmental levels. Even if he did (which evidence hasn't been brought forward by you), THESE REMARKS DO NOT PROVE IT.

There is delusion in evidence here, but not on my part.

LWW
02-25-2011, 05:12 PM
Again, what part of this statement is confusing you:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>All Government employees</span> should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. </div></div>

other than it doesn't fit the current regime's current version of "TRUTH" being placed on the spoon?

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-27-2011, 05:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, what part of this statement is confusing you:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>All Government employees</span> should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. </div></div>

other than it doesn't fit the current regime's current version of "TRUTH" being placed on the spoon?

LWW
</div></div>

Ignoring the whole of what was said is a recipe for textual misrepresentation.

His 'all government employees' refers to those whose employer is the whole of the country, under conditions set by CONGRESS.

If you read all he said.

So by 'government employees' he can ONLY have been referring to federal government employees, because in no way is a city, county, or state employee employed by the entire country, nor do they have Congress determining their pay or benefits.

Context police, right away, please!

LWW
02-28-2011, 02:12 AM
That level of doublethink puts you on par with Gee and Snoopy.

Proceed.

LWW

Stretch
02-28-2011, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That level of doublethink puts you on par with Gee and Snoopy.

Proceed.

LWW </div></div>

So there is absolutely no difference between Federal Employee's and State/county/city employee's? St.

Soflasnapper
02-28-2011, 08:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That level of doublethink puts you on par with Gee and Snoopy.

Proceed.

LWW </div></div>

Never learned how to do exegesis, I see.

Yes, FDR's 'all government employees' SEEMS to say what you say it does, but in the whole context, it CANNOT mean that, and means instead what I've said. Unless you show me the city, county and state workers who are employed by the WHOLE population, and whose boss is Congress, as the rest of his argument states is his assumption in the discussion.

Sev
02-28-2011, 08:56 AM
Both are deficits to the state and country.
Both remove earned income form the pockets of the people.
Both take dues and use them to contribute to political groups that member may not support.
Both negatively effect GDP.

The federal unions trump the state unions both for salary and benefits.

LWW
02-28-2011, 10:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That level of doublethink puts you on par with Gee and Snoopy.

Proceed.

LWW </div></div>

Never learned how to do exegesis, I see.

Yes, FDR's 'all government employees' SEEMS to say what you say it does, but in the whole context, it CANNOT mean that, and means instead what I've said. Unless you show me the city, county and state workers who are employed by the WHOLE population, and whose boss is Congress, as the rest of his argument states is his assumption in the discussion.
</div></div>

And again with the doublethink.

Your argument boils down to "Just because it's true doesn't make it true!"

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-02-2011, 05:46 PM
Exegesis is not always pretty, but somebody has to do it.

I know, when you have no critical thinking skills, it can cause your head to explode.

You have found some evidence that makes it more likely than not that the hypothesis that FDR would have ALSO opposed public unions at the state and more local levels is correct.

But since there is limiting language IN this bit of evidence, which clearly shows he was at that time referring ONLY to federal workers unionizing, you haven't quoted him saying what you thought he said, which was qualified by those extra phrases.

Maybe you could stop your confused outrage long enough to actually find such evidence, instead of pretending you already did. Or can you only dish out what you receive on the spoon?

pooltchr
03-02-2011, 05:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I know, when you have no critical thinking skills, it can cause your head to explode.

</div></div>

Can we assume you speak from personal experience?

Steve

LWW
03-03-2011, 02:32 AM
That was the read I took from it.

LWW

Stretch
03-03-2011, 11:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was the read I took from it.

LWW </div></div>

That explains your severly stunted comprehension skills. Thanks for the display. St.

LWW
03-03-2011, 03:26 PM
BRAVO!

I think that was your first ever post with all the words correctly spelled.

At this rate of progress you might even someday be qualified to hold a job like woofie saying "WELCOME TO WALMART!" or even saying "WOULD YOU LIKE FRIES WITH THAT?" at a two star restaurant.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-03-2011, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I know, when you have no critical thinking skills, it can cause your head to explode.

</div></div>

Can we assume you speak from personal experience?

Steve </div></div>

Ha, good one!

Even possessing critical thinking skills is no assurance they'll be used in every situation.

The more one has invested in a world view, the harder it is to view things objectively, and not have a knee-jerk reaction that is unthinking.

I have seen this in myself, and I work on resisting the reflexive rejection of unwelcome but true facts, at least to look into them for what truth they may contain.

It's a challenge that can only be noticed when one realizes how strongly bias may cloud achieving an accurate take on things.

I suspect everyone has the same challenge, but fewer than everyone realizes it, and still fewer actively work to limit those effects.

LWW
03-03-2011, 03:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Exegesis is not always pretty, but somebody has to do it. </div></div>

You are so cute when you use words you don't understand.

LWW

JohnnyD
03-03-2011, 04:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BRAVO!

I think that was your first ever post with all the words correctly spelled.

At this rate of progress you might even someday be qualified to hold a job like woofie saying "WELCOME TO WALMART!" or even saying "WOULD YOU LIKE FRIES WITH THAT?" at a two star restaurant.

LWW </div></div>Ohh my,not again.

LWW
03-03-2011, 04:20 PM
They seem to have no interest in learning JohnnyD.

LWW

Stretch
03-03-2011, 05:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BRAVO!

I think that was your first ever post with all the words correctly spelled.

At this rate of progress you might even someday be qualified to hold a job like woofie saying "WELCOME TO WALMART!" or even saying "WOULD YOU LIKE FRIES WITH THAT?" at a two star restaurant.

LWW </div></div>

As usuall your spelling fixation clouds your judgement in a blazing display of ignorance. Well done! St.

JohnnyD
03-03-2011, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BRAVO!

I think that was your first ever post with all the words correctly spelled.

At this rate of progress you might even someday be qualified to hold a job like woofie saying "WELCOME TO WALMART!" or even saying "WOULD YOU LIKE FRIES WITH THAT?" at a two star restaurant.

LWW </div></div>

As usuall your spelling fixation clouds your judgement in a blazing display of ignorance. Well done! St. </div></div>
Jesus loves you

LWW
03-04-2011, 05:54 AM
Backsliding already I see.

LWW

Stretch
03-04-2011, 07:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Backsliding already I see.

LWW </div></div>

Throws LWW a crying towel. St.

LWW
03-04-2011, 07:18 AM
I'm sure you have plenty of them.

LWW

Stretch
03-04-2011, 07:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sure you have plenty of them.

LWW </div></div>

What, you need more?? St.

LWW
03-04-2011, 07:31 AM
Your brother Q might.

LWW

Stretch
03-05-2011, 01:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your brother Q might.

LWW </div></div>

I doubt it, but you can share with your brother johnny. St.

LWW
03-08-2011, 05:49 AM
I am proud to have JohnnyD as my brother from another mother.

LWW