login
Protesting good or bad? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-02-22 10:54 AM in reply to: #3366967 |
Champion  34263     Chicago |  Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad?jszat - 2011-02-22 10:49 AM 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-22 10:34 AM You dont think this is a bit intellectually lazy to try and make an apples to oranges comparison pertaining to Wisconsin and the fact that there is a democratic system in place? Really its this kind of melodrama and sloppy thought that tries to push me from the middle. You can do better than this.crusevegas - 2011-02-22 10:17 AM AddysDaddy - 2011-02-22 6:47 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-22 8:37 AM I think the biggest difference between the groups you have mentioned is that the WI protestors are government union workers demanding the status quo and insisting that the people of the State cough up more money to the government for benefits that they can no longer afford. The others are the gneral population protesting against the government. I think if one wanted to compare the WI protests with the Egypt (and I personally think it's a pretty poor commparison) protest you would have to look at the union protestors as the group who were out trying to silence the will of the people. Like President Obama said to the leader of Egypt he should listen to the will of the people, well it would be nice if he would take his own advise here. But no he mobalised his political arm to assult the will of the people of WI. That's my take on it anyway. Who's will should he listen to. The people who voted OR the pople who are protesting in demonstration of a bill. I think both are the will of the people. Your bias is showing. I am nuetral in this Wisconsin protest as I have no dog in the fight and understand where both sides are coming from. I don't think I've ever tried to disguise where I'm coming from. When I am speaking of the will of the people, I'm speaking of the majory of the people. The majority spoke in November, just because the CPUSA, the DNC, the Unions from around the country and President Obama's own polictical community organizing arm have brought in buss loads of people from around the nation to try and influence public perception, that doesn't represent that the majority of WI residents. A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how many rules/laws they break and how loud they scream. ... I'm sure glad you weren't around when the Native Americans, African Americans, and women were shouting out for their freedom. I dont see how this is intellectually lazy. He's saying that Cruse's statement that ``A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how many rules/laws they break and how loud they scream.'' would've hurt the causes of said groups, which is true. Had the minorities in those situations not broke some rules and laws and screamed real real loud, then they wouldn't have acheived what they've acheived. |
| 2011-02-22 10:56 AM in reply to: #3366923 |
| Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-22 8:34 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-22 10:17 AM I don't think I've ever tried to disguise where I'm coming from. When I am speaking of the will of the people, I'm speaking of the majory of the people. The majority spoke in November, just because the CPUSA, the DNC, the Unions from around the country and President Obama's own polictical community organizing arm have brought in buss loads of people from around the nation to try and influence public perception, that doesn't represent that the majority of WI residents. A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how many rules/laws they break and how loud they scream. ... I'm sure glad you weren't around when the Native Americans, African Americans, and women were shouting out for their freedom. Wow, now we are moving from comparing the government union workers and Egyt to the Indians who were massacared 100's of years ago and slaves,,,,, Yeah I see the comparison |
| 2011-02-22 11:07 AM in reply to: #3366982 |
Pro 3906  Libertyville, IL | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? mr2tony - 2011-02-22 10:54 AM My point is moreso that there is a comparison being made to human rights vs the right a x amount of dollars or benefits. And then there are those that say its not about the money, its about bargaining. I have yet to see one person defend the right of a person who wants to teach and be non-union. Its simply not an option, its just pay your dues and shut up. So why does that right to collectively bargain (probably the majority of teachers) supercede the ability of anybody that wants to negotiate on their own (possibly the minority, but who knows cuz there is no option?) I just want it logically explained to me is all and that hasnt happened yet. Instead its a 'rights is rights and my rights are all that matter'. Sorry that this topic is bleeding into this but needed to use the example.jszat - 2011-02-22 10:49 AM I dont see how this is intellectually lazy. He's saying that Cruse's statement that ``A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how many rules/laws they break and how loud they scream.'' would've hurt the causes of said groups, which is true. Had the minorities in those situations not broke some rules and laws and screamed real real loud, then they wouldn't have acheived what they've acheived. 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-22 10:34 AM You dont think this is a bit intellectually lazy to try and make an apples to oranges comparison pertaining to Wisconsin and the fact that there is a democratic system in place? Really its this kind of melodrama and sloppy thought that tries to push me from the middle. You can do better than this.crusevegas - 2011-02-22 10:17 AM AddysDaddy - 2011-02-22 6:47 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-22 8:37 AM I think the biggest difference between the groups you have mentioned is that the WI protestors are government union workers demanding the status quo and insisting that the people of the State cough up more money to the government for benefits that they can no longer afford. The others are the gneral population protesting against the government. I think if one wanted to compare the WI protests with the Egypt (and I personally think it's a pretty poor commparison) protest you would have to look at the union protestors as the group who were out trying to silence the will of the people. Like President Obama said to the leader of Egypt he should listen to the will of the people, well it would be nice if he would take his own advise here. But no he mobalised his political arm to assult the will of the people of WI. That's my take on it anyway. Who's will should he listen to. The people who voted OR the pople who are protesting in demonstration of a bill. I think both are the will of the people. Your bias is showing. I am nuetral in this Wisconsin protest as I have no dog in the fight and understand where both sides are coming from. I don't think I've ever tried to disguise where I'm coming from. When I am speaking of the will of the people, I'm speaking of the majory of the people. The majority spoke in November, just because the CPUSA, the DNC, the Unions from around the country and President Obama's own polictical community organizing arm have brought in buss loads of people from around the nation to try and influence public perception, that doesn't represent that the majority of WI residents. A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how many rules/laws they break and how loud they scream. ... I'm sure glad you weren't around when the Native Americans, African Americans, and women were shouting out for their freedom. |
| 2011-02-22 11:20 AM in reply to: #3366517 |
Pro 4277 Parker, CO | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? Overall I think having the right to protest (peacefully) is a good thing. When it comes to topics like human rights it usually will get my attention. When it's a labor union...I say get back to work like the rest of us. But they have the right to protest...and I have the right to ignor them. |
| 2011-02-22 11:35 AM in reply to: #3366517 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? I support everyone's right to exercise their rights. As long as their agenda agrees with mine! If you don't use your power, then you should expect other people with power to treat you as if you have no power. That always works well when the individual is pitted against the state, no? |
| 2011-02-22 11:43 AM in reply to: #3367010 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? jszat - 2011-02-22 11:07 AM mr2tony - 2011-02-22 10:54 AM My point is moreso that there is a comparison being made to human rights vs the right a x amount of dollars or benefits. And then there are those that say its not about the money, its about bargaining. I have yet to see one person defend the right of a person who wants to teach and be non-union. Its simply not an option, its just pay your dues and shut up. So why does that right to collectively bargain (probably the majority of teachers) supercede the ability of anybody that wants to negotiate on their own (possibly the minority, but who knows cuz there is no option?) I just want it logically explained to me is all and that hasnt happened yet. Instead its a 'rights is rights and my rights are all that matter'. Sorry that this topic is bleeding into this but needed to use the example.jszat - 2011-02-22 10:49 AM I dont see how this is intellectually lazy. He's saying that Cruse's statement that ``A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how many rules/laws they break and how loud they scream.'' would've hurt the causes of said groups, which is true. Had the minorities in those situations not broke some rules and laws and screamed real real loud, then they wouldn't have acheived what they've acheived. 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-22 10:34 AM You dont think this is a bit intellectually lazy to try and make an apples to oranges comparison pertaining to Wisconsin and the fact that there is a democratic system in place? Really its this kind of melodrama and sloppy thought that tries to push me from the middle. You can do better than this.crusevegas - 2011-02-22 10:17 AM AddysDaddy - 2011-02-22 6:47 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-22 8:37 AM I think the biggest difference between the groups you have mentioned is that the WI protestors are government union workers demanding the status quo and insisting that the people of the State cough up more money to the government for benefits that they can no longer afford. The others are the gneral population protesting against the government. I think if one wanted to compare the WI protests with the Egypt (and I personally think it's a pretty poor commparison) protest you would have to look at the union protestors as the group who were out trying to silence the will of the people. Like President Obama said to the leader of Egypt he should listen to the will of the people, well it would be nice if he would take his own advise here. But no he mobalised his political arm to assult the will of the people of WI. That's my take on it anyway. Who's will should he listen to. The people who voted OR the pople who are protesting in demonstration of a bill. I think both are the will of the people. Your bias is showing. I am nuetral in this Wisconsin protest as I have no dog in the fight and understand where both sides are coming from. I don't think I've ever tried to disguise where I'm coming from. When I am speaking of the will of the people, I'm speaking of the majory of the people. The majority spoke in November, just because the CPUSA, the DNC, the Unions from around the country and President Obama's own polictical community organizing arm have brought in buss loads of people from around the nation to try and influence public perception, that doesn't represent that the majority of WI residents. A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how many rules/laws they break and how loud they scream. ... I'm sure glad you weren't around when the Native Americans, African Americans, and women were shouting out for their freedom. I see your point. But the fact remains, they have the right to protest. |
| 2011-02-22 12:01 PM in reply to: #3366517 |
| Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? Just because I think a particular protester is wrong doesn't mean they don't have a right to legally do it. You need to separate those two concepts. In your OP, you seem to be saying that if people support the right to protest they must therefore support the subject of protest. Edited by ChrisM 2011-02-22 12:26 PM |
| 2011-02-22 12:11 PM in reply to: #3367075 |
Pro 3906 Libertyville, IL | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? mr2tony - 2011-02-22 11:43 AM Agreed. jszat - 2011-02-22 11:07 AM I see your point. But the fact remains, they have the right to protest. mr2tony - 2011-02-22 10:54 AM My point is moreso that there is a comparison being made to human rights vs the right a x amount of dollars or benefits. And then there are those that say its not about the money, its about bargaining. I have yet to see one person defend the right of a person who wants to teach and be non-union. Its simply not an option, its just pay your dues and shut up. So why does that right to collectively bargain (probably the majority of teachers) supercede the ability of anybody that wants to negotiate on their own (possibly the minority, but who knows cuz there is no option?) I just want it logically explained to me is all and that hasnt happened yet. Instead its a 'rights is rights and my rights are all that matter'. Sorry that this topic is bleeding into this but needed to use the example.jszat - 2011-02-22 10:49 AM I dont see how this is intellectually lazy. He's saying that Cruse's statement that ``A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how many rules/laws they break and how loud they scream.'' would've hurt the causes of said groups, which is true. Had the minorities in those situations not broke some rules and laws and screamed real real loud, then they wouldn't have acheived what they've acheived. 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-22 10:34 AM You dont think this is a bit intellectually lazy to try and make an apples to oranges comparison pertaining to Wisconsin and the fact that there is a democratic system in place? Really its this kind of melodrama and sloppy thought that tries to push me from the middle. You can do better than this.crusevegas - 2011-02-22 10:17 AM AddysDaddy - 2011-02-22 6:47 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-22 8:37 AM I think the biggest difference between the groups you have mentioned is that the WI protestors are government union workers demanding the status quo and insisting that the people of the State cough up more money to the government for benefits that they can no longer afford. The others are the gneral population protesting against the government. I think if one wanted to compare the WI protests with the Egypt (and I personally think it's a pretty poor commparison) protest you would have to look at the union protestors as the group who were out trying to silence the will of the people. Like President Obama said to the leader of Egypt he should listen to the will of the people, well it would be nice if he would take his own advise here. But no he mobalised his political arm to assult the will of the people of WI. That's my take on it anyway. Who's will should he listen to. The people who voted OR the pople who are protesting in demonstration of a bill. I think both are the will of the people. Your bias is showing. I am nuetral in this Wisconsin protest as I have no dog in the fight and understand where both sides are coming from. I don't think I've ever tried to disguise where I'm coming from. When I am speaking of the will of the people, I'm speaking of the majory of the people. The majority spoke in November, just because the CPUSA, the DNC, the Unions from around the country and President Obama's own polictical community organizing arm have brought in buss loads of people from around the nation to try and influence public perception, that doesn't represent that the majority of WI residents. A vocal minority is still a minority, no matter how many rules/laws they break and how loud they scream. ... I'm sure glad you weren't around when the Native Americans, African Americans, and women were shouting out for their freedom. |
| 2011-02-22 1:41 PM in reply to: #3366596 |
Elite 3088 Austin, TX Gold member | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? crusevegas - 2011-02-22 8:37 AM I think the biggest difference between the groups you have mentioned is that the WI protestors are government union workers demanding the status quo and insisting that the people of the State cough up more money to the government for benefits that they can no longer afford. Slight hijack, but let's not pretend that this is ANYTHING but an attempt to bust the unions. The state unions have already agreed to all of the benefit cuts that have been demanded of them. What they refuse to accept is the end of collective bargaining. It is not about the current budget shortfall. Walker's goal is to eliminate collective bargaining and effectively destroy the unions. Well, kind of, he's exempting the firefighters and police unions. Funny enough, those unions traditionally (granted, not always) back Republicans. Edited by dgunthert 2011-02-22 1:42 PM |
| 2011-02-22 2:00 PM in reply to: #3367311 |
| Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? dgunthert - 2011-02-22 11:41 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-22 8:37 AM I think the biggest difference between the groups you have mentioned is that the WI protestors are government union workers demanding the status quo and insisting that the people of the State cough up more money to the government for benefits that they can no longer afford. Slight hijack, but let's not pretend that this is ANYTHING but an attempt to bust the unions. The state unions have already agreed to all of the benefit cuts that have been demanded of them. What they refuse to accept is the end of collective bargaining. It is not about the current budget shortfall. Walker's goal is to eliminate collective bargaining and effectively destroy the unions. Well, kind of, he's exempting the firefighters and police unions. Funny enough, those unions traditionally (granted, not always) back Republicans. To continue the hijack a bit... I was asking my wife this question this morning. THe news said he was trying to close a $3.6 B budget gap (or something like that) by eliminating collective bargaining. Can someone explain how elimination of that would affect the budget? Is it a forecast that the state will clearly spend "$X less" if it doesn't have to bargain collectively on some upcoming contract that is expiring? |
| 2011-02-22 2:05 PM in reply to: #3366517 |
Master 2404 Redlands, CA | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? The one problem I do see with protesting, isn't necessarily protesting in itself, but that it can influence a publicly voted government to make decisions which are not in the better interest of the country as a whole. This in itself is more a problem with a democratically re elected government than the protests themselves. |
| 2011-02-22 2:29 PM in reply to: #3367338 |
Master 1529 Living in the past | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? ChrisM - 2011-02-22 2:00 PM dgunthert - 2011-02-22 11:41 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-22 8:37 AM I think the biggest difference between the groups you have mentioned is that the WI protestors are government union workers demanding the status quo and insisting that the people of the State cough up more money to the government for benefits that they can no longer afford. Slight hijack, but let's not pretend that this is ANYTHING but an attempt to bust the unions. The state unions have already agreed to all of the benefit cuts that have been demanded of them. What they refuse to accept is the end of collective bargaining. It is not about the current budget shortfall. Walker's goal is to eliminate collective bargaining and effectively destroy the unions. Well, kind of, he's exempting the firefighters and police unions. Funny enough, those unions traditionally (granted, not always) back Republicans. To continue the hijack a bit... I was asking my wife this question this morning. THe news said he was trying to close a $3.6 B budget gap (or something like that) by eliminating collective bargaining. Can someone explain how elimination of that would affect the budget? Is it a forecast that the state will clearly spend "$X less" if it doesn't have to bargain collectively on some upcoming contract that is expiring? Well, the report you heard took a shortcut in the explanation. There are two budget shortfalls - current 2010 fiscal - about $140M and the projected $3.6B two-year shortfall 2011-2013. The legislature is in special session right now (I think) to take up the budget repair bill (current year gap). The budget repair bill closes the first gap by getting the state workers to kick in more to pension and healthcare benefits. To close the second gap ($3.6B), the state will drastically reduce its aid to local governments to the tune of a $1B (if memory serves). Consequently, the local governments will need to drastically slash their budgets. The portion of the bill that removes the bargaining rights on benefits and working conditions is intended to give the local governments the flexibility to balance their own budgets, by yes, reducing wages, curtaining benefits, layoffs, etc. of their unionized workforce. A specious argument claim the protesters. They claim the concessions agreed to (now) by the unions solve the current year and two-year budget shortfalls. They simply want to maintain future rights to collectively bargain. "To what end?", I ask. To negotiate for future pay and benefits, duh!, but doesn't that subject future budgets to the same pressures and what makes someone believe that future negotiations will be consistent with the reality of what the tax payers can afford? Surely past history suggests they won't. Further, I am absolutely convinced that collective bargaining by government workers is profoundly corrupt and a perversion of the proper relationship between employer and customer (i.e., tax payer) and employee. On that basis alone, I would argue for the abolition of these 'rights'. |
| 2011-02-22 2:35 PM in reply to: #3366517 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? I will agree that anyone has the right to protest. I do think there are some things which should not be allowed to protest on the basis of individual vs. government/company issues (For instance those people who protest at funerals of soldiers...that is an individual issue and should not have protesters at it in my mind - though I know they "legally" can.) From what I know of the WI issue I think that they have the right to protest as government workers who are fighting for what they want. I think they should not be getting paid for these days protesting though, especially if it disrupts any public service (schools not being held because there are not teachers, courts not running because the court clerks are out etc). Since the majority spoke already in this issue I do not see anything changing. If these government workers do not like it (in this case) I think they have two choices. 1. quit and find a different job in state or move elsewhere. 2. keep working and when the new law/budget goes into effect, take it to the state supreme court to decide if it is legal. That is the great thing about America. There are usually options and choices to pursue. They may not be the best options, but you have them. Also to the above posters about teachers and unions. I know that a lot of local teachers around me (at least that my wife knows) would love to get rid of their union, or just not be a part of it if possible but unfortunately they do not have that option. unfortunate as well as it seems like those who want out are in the minority, at least around us, so she has to put up with it. |
| 2011-02-22 2:42 PM in reply to: #3367383 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? Force - 2011-02-22 12:29 PM Well, the report you heard took a shortcut in the explanation. There are two budget shortfalls - current 2010 fiscal - about $140M and the projected $3.6B two-year shortfall 2011-2013. The legislature is in special session right now (I think) to take up the budget repair bill (current year gap). The budget repair bill closes the first gap by getting the state workers to kick in more to pension and healthcare benefits. To close the second gap ($3.6B), the state will drastically reduce its aid to local governments to the tune of a $1B (if memory serves). Consequently, the local governments will need to drastically slash their budgets. The portion of the bill that removes the bargaining rights on benefits and working conditions is intended to give the local governments the flexibility to balance their own budgets, by yes, reducing wages, curtaining benefits, layoffs, etc. of their unionized workforce. A specious argument claim the protesters. They claim the concessions agreed to (now) by the unions solve the current year and two-year budget shortfalls. They simply want to maintain future rights to collectively bargain. "To what end?", I ask. To negotiate for future pay and benefits, duh!, but doesn't that subject future budgets to the same pressures and what makes someone believe that future negotiations will be consistent with the reality of what the tax payers can afford? Surely past history suggests they won't. Further, I am absolutely convinced that collective bargaining by government workers is profoundly corrupt and a perversion of the proper relationship between employer and customer (i.e., tax payer) and employee. On that basis alone, I would argue for the abolition of these 'rights'. Regarding your bolded statement I wanted to add, in relation to my state and protesting/bargaining/striking. It was found illegal for state employee unions to strike/protest/walk out as it disrupts local services etc. This has not stopped several School districts from striking (some with legitimate concerns, others to be greedy) over the past several years. I can't say for certain but I would hope other state have similar laws in effect. |
| 2011-02-22 3:00 PM in reply to: #3367383 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? Force - 2011-02-22 2:29 PM To negotiate for future pay and benefits, duh!, but doesn't that subject future budgets to the same pressures and what makes someone believe that future negotiations will be consistent with the reality of what the tax payers can afford? Surely past history suggests they won't. Further, I am absolutely convinced that collective bargaining by government workers is profoundly corrupt and a perversion of the proper relationship between employer and customer (i.e., tax payer) and employee. On that basis alone, I would argue for the abolition of these 'rights'. I would suggest "can afford" is more accurately "want to pay". People grumble about taxes and government "stealing money", but also complain if the line at the DMV is too long. I certainly don't disagree that there are some problems with the way unions operate. I think there are also positive things to the way they operate. Just as there are problems with the way some private companies work and there are some positive things with the way some private companies work. I think that in the general sense, things work when there is a relatively balanced system of checks and balances. Unions arose out a severe imbalance in the relationship between employees and their employers. We take for granted things like child labor laws, safe working conditions, 40 hour work weeks, workman's comp if you are injured on the job, ( i'll leave off unemployment insurance, since that seems to be hotly debated ). I do agree that the pendulum has swung more in favor of unions and employees than employers. I disagree that the best solution to correct that imbalance to completely eradicate the unions.
|
| 2011-02-22 3:00 PM in reply to: #3367399 |
Master 1795 Boynton Beach, FL | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? bel83 - 2011-02-22 3:35 PM I will agree that anyone has the right to protest. I do think there are some things which should not be allowed to protest on the basis of individual vs. government/company issues (For instance those people who protest at funerals of soldiers...that is an individual issue and should not have protesters at it in my mind - though I know they "legally" can.) From what I know of the WI issue I think that they have the right to protest as government workers who are fighting for what they want. I think they should not be getting paid for these days protesting though, especially if it disrupts any public service (schools not being held because there are not teachers, courts not running because the court clerks are out etc). Since the majority spoke already in this issue I do not see anything changing. If these government workers do not like it (in this case) I think they have two choices. 1. quit and find a different job in state or move elsewhere. 2. keep working and when the new law/budget goes into effect, take it to the state supreme court to decide if it is legal. That is the great thing about America. There are usually options and choices to pursue. They may not be the best options, but you have them. Also to the above posters about teachers and unions. I know that a lot of local teachers around me (at least that my wife knows) would love to get rid of their union, or just not be a part of it if possible but unfortunately they do not have that option. unfortunate as well as it seems like those who want out are in the minority, at least around us, so she has to put up with it.[/QUOTE] You always have Private or Charter Schools. Just sayin'. There are choices vs. working under Union control. |
| 2011-02-22 3:18 PM in reply to: #3367458 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? cardenas1 - 2011-02-22 1:00 PM bel83 - 2011-02-22 3:35 PM I will agree that anyone has the right to protest. I do think there are some things which should not be allowed to protest on the basis of individual vs. government/company issues (For instance those people who protest at funerals of soldiers...that is an individual issue and should not have protesters at it in my mind - though I know they "legally" can.) From what I know of the WI issue I think that they have the right to protest as government workers who are fighting for what they want. I think they should not be getting paid for these days protesting though, especially if it disrupts any public service (schools not being held because there are not teachers, courts not running because the court clerks are out etc). Since the majority spoke already in this issue I do not see anything changing. If these government workers do not like it (in this case) I think they have two choices. 1. quit and find a different job in state or move elsewhere. 2. keep working and when the new law/budget goes into effect, take it to the state supreme court to decide if it is legal. That is the great thing about America. There are usually options and choices to pursue. They may not be the best options, but you have them. Also to the above posters about teachers and unions. I know that a lot of local teachers around me (at least that my wife knows) would love to get rid of their union, or just not be a part of it if possible but unfortunately they do not have that option. unfortunate as well as it seems like those who want out are in the minority, at least around us, so she has to put up with it.[/QUOTE] You always have Private or Charter Schools. Just sayin'. There are choices vs. working under Union control. Well yes, except for my wife and those I mentioned are special ed teachers for which there are not really private ed positions available and I do not believe that Washington has set up a charter school system. For other areas those are good options though and I know of friends in other states who have gone with them. |
| 2011-02-22 10:07 PM in reply to: #3366538 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? Goosedog - 2011-02-22 8:15 AM I think, generally, if people disagree with the protesters' position, then the protesters are idiots. If people agree with the protesters' position, then the protesters are noble freedom fighters. I have nothing else to read in this thread. You hit the nail on the head. Regardless of what side you're on, this is the absolute truth. |
| 2011-02-22 10:47 PM in reply to: #3366517 |
| Master 1895 | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? Protesting is fine and dandy....go at it. But, just like with freedom of speech, there are could be consequences to your actions. If you're skipping work and causing the complete shut-down your business, you can't be surprised when if you are fired. |
| 2011-02-22 11:30 PM in reply to: #3366517 |
Champion 6931 Bellingham, Washington | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? don't want to protest in Iran or Libya....or Kent State. Otherwise go for it. |
| 2011-02-23 8:03 AM in reply to: #3366517 |
Master 1440 | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? Marvarnett - 2011-02-22 9:06 AM ISo here is my question: If protesting is what the 'people' feel passionate about then how can one be say protesting is good on one point and bad on the other? I'm slightly picking on the right here because I hear the same people that backed the tea party protests as 'The voice of America' are now trying to silence the WI protesters. Protest to your hearts content, On your own time, with out committing fraud (Fake sick notes). If they want to take a vaction day to do it great knock themselves out, but this whole issue of Doctors writing fraudulent notes is a bunch of hooey. And yes I am a public school teacher. |
| 2011-02-23 8:50 AM in reply to: #3366517 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? Protesting in itself is a good thing. It's healthy expression when done in a peaceful manner and reported on without bias. Doing it to hurt a business or economy is when it becomes questionable. For instance, if your house was on fire and the fire department decided to not go unless you gave them more money.. that cannot be tolerated. Likewise, shutting down schools is not going to win you much support. |
| 2011-02-23 8:55 AM in reply to: #3368360 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? Pector55 - 2011-02-23 8:50 AM Protesting in itself is a good thing. It's healthy expression when done in a peaceful manner and reported on without bias. Doing it to hurt a business or economy is when it becomes questionable. For instance, if your house was on fire and the fire department decided to not go unless you gave them more money.. that cannot be tolerated. Likewise, shutting down schools is not going to win you much support. A lot of protests such as stikes and picket lines are designed to hurt businesses. Nothing wrong with that. You just better hope people agree with you or you're going to be out there marching for a long time with no real benefits. In Chicago, in front of the Congress Hotel there were picketers for years -- from the time I arrived in 2006 until the time I left in 2010. They were always there. After a while you just got used to them being there. That's not effective. But hey, more power to 'em. |
| 2011-02-23 11:08 AM in reply to: #3367311 |
Expert 834 Medina, MN | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? dgunthert - 2011-02-22 1:41 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-22 8:37 AM I think the biggest difference between the groups you have mentioned is that the WI protestors are government union workers demanding the status quo and insisting that the people of the State cough up more money to the government for benefits that they can no longer afford. Slight hijack, but let's not pretend that this is ANYTHING but an attempt to bust the unions. The state unions have already agreed to all of the benefit cuts that have been demanded of them. What they refuse to accept is the end of collective bargaining. It is not about the current budget shortfall. Walker's goal is to eliminate collective bargaining and effectively destroy the unions. Well, kind of, he's exempting the firefighters and police unions. Funny enough, those unions traditionally (granted, not always) back Republicans. Well, yes an no. I think it's an attack on the general status quo whereby the public employees union are huge donors to political campaigns and then when someone gets elected, they get paid back with generous contracts. If you pay your employees too much in the private sector, you become uncompetitive and eventually go out of business. In the public sector, unless you're going to cut services provided by the government, you just end up having to tax more. The Wisconsin situation is an attempt to tilt the negotiating power in favor of the government on a more permanent basis, rather than just for this budget cycle. I know I'm probably on the extreme on this, but I think anyone who is underpaid (by the government or otherwise) should go find another job. Also, I will say that I don't believe there are many government employees, teachers in particular, who are overpaid in cash compensation terms. It's just the pension obligations that are killing state and municipal budgets. If you allow someone to retire with a pension after 25 - 30 years on the job, many of them will collect a pension almost as long as they worked, and you end up having half of your "employees salaries and compensation expense" going to retirees rather than current workers. As it relates to the original topic, I actually don't mind the protests in Wisconsin as much as some, in that I feel like a number of the people involved in the discussion are actually educated on the facts. I think the actions by the democratic congressmen to walk out is completely bogus. I would love to see some detail on how much money each of them took from the public employees unions in their most recent campaign... Edited by MLJ 2011-02-23 11:09 AM |
| 2011-02-23 11:26 AM in reply to: #3366596 |
Champion 4835 Eat Cheese or Die | Subject: RE: Protesting good or bad? crusevegas - 2011-02-22 8:37 AM Like President Obama said to the leader of Egypt he should listen to the will of the people, well it would be nice if he would take his own advise here. But no he mobalised his political arm to assult the will of the people of WI. That's my take on it anyway. I live in Wisconsin. I didn't vote for Walker. My will is what the protesters are fighting for. I agree that president Obama should butt out because it's our state's issue. But by that reasoning, so should you  |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK