Come on, man....

[spence]

Agree, this is pretty absurd.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, this is pretty absurd.

-spence

Almost as absurd as saying it's bad for the nation when companies buy political influence, and then denying saying that when confronted with an obvious hypocrisy that you don't care when labor unions do the same thing. I'm still waiting for a response...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Almost as absurd as saying it's bad for the nation when companies buy political influence, and then denying saying that when confronted with an obvious hypocrisy that you don't care when labor unions do the same thing. I'm still waiting for a response...

WRONG. I gave you a response, I asked when I ever said such a thing.

Asking someone to resolve a negative statement isn't rational, it's the kind of circular argument that dooms corporate lobbyists like Newt Gingrich to the private sector and drives geologists like RIROCKHOUND crazy.

What you say is the common thread? For both, it's all in the record

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

WRONG. I gave you a response, I asked when I ever said such a thing.

Asking someone to resolve a negative statement isn't rational, it's the kind of circular argument that dooms corporate lobbyists like Newt Gingrich to the private sector and drives geologists like RIROCKHOUND crazy.

What you say is the common thread? For both, it's all in the record

-spence

"WRONG. I gave you a response, I asked when I ever said such a thing."

Yes, you asked me when you ever said any such thing. And I responded to that WITH YOUR QUOTE. Since it didn't sink in, here it is again. #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& asked what the occupiers were protesting, and here is what you wrote...

"How corporate influence over our political process is rigging the game in favor of the wealthy."

Spence, in tennis, this is what is known as game, set, and match. Those are your words. Deny it all you want when it's convenient, but that's what you said.

So one more time, here is my question Spence. If corporations buying political influence is a legitimate threat, why isn't it a similar threat when public labor unions do it? If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, let's see a response. Stop telling us you didn't say what I'm claiming you said.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Stop telling us you didn't say what I'm claiming you said.

I think you just answered your own question.

But anyway, the focus of Occupy is weighted towards wall street influence on Washington. This doesn't mean that labor unions are exempt from any criticism and I've never said labor union influence on politics is exempt from any criticism. They're just not a focus of this movement. Labor unions are usually seen as fighting for the rights of the worker, not the capital.

DUH!

As usual, you're trying to have the argument you with you were having rather than one about what's really going on in society.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you just answered your own question.

Labor unions are usually seen as fighting for the rights of the worker, not the capital.

-spence

You are really, really bonkers.

I am a "worker", though not in a union. So please tell me, when my town's teachers union demands rich pensions that can never be reasonably funded, and healthcare at lower out-of-pocket costs that private sector folks cannot imagine, please tell me how that union is looking out for me, "the worker"?

Spence, it's this simple. When Wall Street banks donate to politicians, they are looking out for their own selfish interests. When labor unions donate to politicians, they are doing the same exact thing.

The only difference is this...for the most part (there are exceptions), what banks do doesn't have to impact me unless I choose to do business wih them. What labor unions do impacts every single person, in the form of taxes, there is literally no way to avoid it. Those insane benefits drive up municipal property taxes, state income taxes, and business property taxes (which businesses have to pay for with higher prices).

You go ahead and tell me where that's wrong Spence.

This liberal notion that labor unions are looking out for "the little guy" is a total lie. Less than 10% of the working population belngs to a union, and most non-union folks are NOT rich, but rather are also "the little guy". Lots of non-unionized little guys are seriously hurt by the gross injustices of labor union practices. Liberals like you hide that by painting this struggle as rich versus poor. That makes a great sound byte, but it's very dishonest.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Liberals like you hide that by painting this struggle as rich versus poor. That makes a great sound byte, but it's very dishonest.

get used to it this is pretty good

"In Teddy Roosevelt's era, President Barack Obama explained to the nation this week, "some people thought massive inequality and exploitation was just the price of progress. ... But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can."

And he's right. Even today there are people who believe they should have free license to take whatever they want from whomever they can. They're called Democrats."




RealClearPolitics - Obama vs. Capitalism

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are really, really bonkers.

If by "bonkers" you mean quite rational and well informed...then I agree.

I am a "worker", though not in a union. So please tell me, when my town's teachers union demands rich pensions that can never be reasonably funded, and healthcare at lower out-of-pocket costs that private sector folks cannot imagine, please tell me how that union is looking out for me, "the worker"?

My comment was clearly referring to the rights of union workers...I'm sorry if this went over your head. That was not my intention.

Spence, it's this simple. When Wall Street banks donate to politicians, they are looking out for their own selfish interests. When labor unions donate to politicians, they are doing the same exact thing.

People donate for their own interests??? This changes everything.

The only difference is this...for the most part (there are exceptions), what banks do doesn't have to impact me unless I choose to do business wih them.

Do you keep all your money under a mattress? No credit cards? You don't ever take a loan either do you?

What labor unions do impacts every single person, in the form of taxes, there is literally no way to avoid it. Those insane benefits drive up municipal property taxes, state income taxes, and business property taxes (which businesses have to pay for with higher prices).

Could also just be bad government. I don't think either party has a monopoly on fiscal responsibility.

This liberal notion that labor unions are looking out for "the little guy" is a total lie. Less than 10% of the working population belngs to a union, and most non-union folks are NOT rich, but rather are also "the little guy". Lots of non-unionized little guys are seriously hurt by the gross injustices of labor union practices. Liberals like you hide that by painting this struggle as rich versus poor. That makes a great sound byte, but it's very dishonest.

It's funny, I'm pretty sure I've never started a sentence with "Conservatives like you" in my life.

-spence