• Wisconsin Governor Pranked by Pretend Koch Brother Confirming Union Busting Motive
    113 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;28270031]How does non-improving test scores necessitate reducing the budget? That's about as opposite of a good response as you can get. It's like a doctor giving a patient a week anti-biotic for a disease it could treat. When the patient doesn't respond, instead of trying something different, or giving a bigger dosage, he just gives up treating him.[/QUOTE] "Sorry sir your melanoma has spread to the lymph nodes. I'm afraid treating this disease will cost way too much of your time and money so we aren't going to treat you. Have a nice life."
[QUOTE=Glaber;28269506]Actually I do. But it's not just the mental stuff, but the use of the internet too. I was originally trying to find an online version of Wikipedia's source of that quote, but the page was either down or missing so I was unable to find out more about the quote in question. So just as I was about to admit Defeat, I took one last look at the dates of the quotes. My quote wound up being the later one. [editline]24th February 2011[/editline] Personally I rather not, but if the test scores don't improve. Well, what would you do? This isn't an easy choice you know. Okay, That' I don't believe, Reason: Glenn's history of nonsense used to prove a point that I've been exposed too. (EX: the boiling of a Frog that turned out to be plastic with edited footage inserted before the toss in) Plus there has been an over use of Fox quote mines. I was never exposed to a Darwin quote mine until today.[/QUOTE] the later one? It's a speech. He gave it a few times, I assure you. You're just quote mining on a different day. If we went out and found something from fox that contradicted the rest of fox, you'd still say, "well, that doesn't contradict everything...." and keep watching.
[quote=In response to cutting the education budget]Personally I rather not, but if the test scores don't improve. Well, what would you do? This isn't an easy choice you know.[/quote] Just emphasizing this again
[QUOTE=Glaber;28269506]Actually I do. But it's not just the mental stuff, but the use of the internet too. I was originally trying to find an online version of Wikipedia's source of that quote, but the page was either down or missing so I was unable to find out more about the quote in question. So just as I was about to admit Defeat, I took one last look at the dates of the quotes. My quote wound up being the later one. [editline]24th February 2011[/editline] Personally I rather not, but if the test scores don't improve. Well, what would you do? This isn't an easy choice you know. Okay, That' I don't believe, Reason: Glenn's history of nonsense used to prove a point that I've been exposed too. (EX: the boiling of a Frog that turned out to be plastic with edited footage inserted before the toss in) Plus there has been an over use of Fox quote mines. I was never exposed to a Darwin quote mine until today.[/QUOTE] No. The brilliant thing about fox is you can't quote mine them. Everything they say is ridiculous. Also, you were never exposed to that? So you're really just so dense that you latch onto a tiny bit of information, twist it to suit your needs as you have here, and then just go on about your day? Well no fucking wonder we can't get anywhere with you. [editline]24th February 2011[/editline] What would your reaction to public education doing really well? Would you start cutting the budget then too? Hell, just cut budges, cut taxes, but spend more money on defense and fucking with your own citizens.
Times like this are when we need a ratings counter like back in the old days. I really want to see how many dumbs Glaber has.
I'm tired, I'll be heading to bed. If Glaber posts I'll deal with it tomorrow.
Thy Reaper is right when he talked of competitive teacher pay and benefits. My mother is a very great teacher, and won several teacher awards in the state of Iowa. But she's been doing it awhile. And do you want to know what's happening to teachers? Let me tell you. They let them work till they make a certain pay, then find a reason to fire them, and do. I know a man who was a few years from retiring, but was fired for some BS. Now he's fucked because he's too experienced to teach, and has no other skills than teaching. We are in an age where apparently we don't give a shit about our education. Do we want dumbass kids, and impoverished areas of living where crime runs rampant? Because poverty and crime go hand in hand. It's part of the human condition to survive. You will claw your way out of the bottom of a hole if you need to. And lets not forget, an educated nation is great nation. Great thinkers help the entire country. Why the FUCK are we trying to stop that with shit like this? It's like there's some ulterior motive to create a caste-based society over the next 100 years, where the dumb, poor workers slave away for the wealthy, affluent elite. We will head to the fucking dark ages if we keep attacking schools and teachers. It wont take ten years, 50 years, or even a century. But you give it long enough and you fuck this nation over. Every time I see someone trying to remove teacher benefits or salary... It makes me want to drop them into a shark infested ocean with a bacon sweater. And guys, use Glaber as a lesson. Think of him not as a human, but more of an obstacle. And don't attack his beliefs, attack the system which he bases his beliefs off of. You cant win if you go after the crust of his arguments.
[QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;28270351]Thy Reaper is right when he talked of competitive teacher pay and benefits. My mother is a very great teacher, and won several teacher awards in the state of Iowa. But she's been doing it awhile. And do you want to know what's happening to teachers? Let me tell you. They let them work till they make a certain pay, then find a reason to fire them, and do. I know a man who was a few years from retiring, but was fired for some BS. Now he's fucked because he's too experienced to teach, and has no other skills than teaching. We are in an age where apparently we don't give a shit about our education. Do we want dumbass kids, and impoverished areas of living where crime runs rampant? Because poverty and crime go hand in hand. It's part of the human condition to survive. You will claw your way out of the bottom of a hole if you need to. And lets not forget, an educated nation is great nation. Great thinkers help the entire country. Why the FUCK are we trying to stop that with shit like this? It's like there's some ulterior motive to create a caste-based society over the next 100 years, where the dumb, poor workers slave away for the wealthy, affluent elite. We will head to the fucking dark ages if we keep attacking schools and teachers. It wont take ten years, 50 years, or even a century. But you give it long enough and you fuck this nation over. Every time I see someone trying to remove teacher benefits or salary... It makes me want to drop them into a shark infested ocean with a bacon sweater.[/QUOTE] But it's socialism only the rich can have an education David Koch 2012. :fsmug:
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;28270031]How does non-improving test scores necessitate reducing the budget? That's about as opposite of a good response as you can get. It's like a doctor giving a patient a weak anti-biotic for a disease it could treat. When the patient doesn't respond, instead of trying something different, or giving a bigger dosage, he just gives up treating him.[/QUOTE] [Comparison incompatible] Care to explain your logic here? I'm having trouble comparing funding to medicine. You see a school could have increased funding and still have the worst test scores in the state or nation. (See Detroit Public School yet again) Where as a doctor doesn't give up until all options are exhausted [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28270148]What would your reaction to public education doing really well? Would you start cutting the budget then too? Hell, just cut budges, cut taxes, but spend more money on defense and fucking with your own citizens.[/QUOTE] Well that's just the thing now, isn't it? Public education isn't doing well. If it was, I wouldn't be asking for cuts in education. We thrown money at education for far too long and the results are less than favorable. We need to find some other way to improve on education. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;28270351]Thy Reaper is right when he talked of competitive teacher pay and benefits. My mother is a very great teacher, and won several teacher awards in the state of Iowa. But she's been doing it awhile. And do you want to know what's happening to teachers? Let me tell you. They let them work till they make a certain pay, then find a reason to fire them, and do. I know a man who was a few years from retiring, but was fired for some BS. Now he's fucked because he's too experienced to teach, and has no other skills than teaching. We are in an age where apparently we don't give a shit about our education. Do we want dumbass kids, and impoverished areas of living where crime runs rampant? Because poverty and crime go hand in hand. It's part of the human condition to survive. You will claw your way out of the bottom of a hole if you need to. And lets not forget, an educated nation is great nation. Great thinkers help the entire country. Why the FUCK are we trying to stop that with shit like this? It's like there's some ulterior motive to create a caste-based society over the next 100 years, where the dumb, poor workers slave away for the wealthy, affluent elite. We will head to the fucking dark ages if we keep attacking schools and teachers. It wont take ten years, 50 years, or even a century. But you give it long enough and you fuck this nation over. Every time I see someone trying to remove teacher benefits or salary... It makes me want to drop them into a shark infested ocean with a bacon sweater. And guys, use Glaber as a lesson. Think of him not as a human, but more of an obstacle. And don't attack his beliefs, attack the system which he bases his beliefs off of. You cant win if you go after the crust of his arguments.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry to hear this. you mother shouldn't be fired for any reason as she sounds like a great teacher. Wasn't there a worse teacher they could of fired, or did the Unions get in the way? now from the sounds of things, your mother and that fired man deserve their benefits, but these teachers who abused their sick days to go and protest? I don't think so. They're protesting for their benefits, not for better supplies or a better learning environment, or anything related to improving education. Now if Teacher unions protected good teachers and not the horribad ones. Well then maybe I'd have some sympathy towards Union teachers [QUOTE=Sega Saturn;28269915]The exact date has nothing to do with it, and we both know that you're too dense to concede ground no matter how badly you are beaten. I looked up the letter that you quoted in the Washington Times. He wrote this: "As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message. Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs. The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but 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 public 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. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that [B]"[I][U]under no circumstances[/U][/I] shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government." [/B] I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful." He writes that public employees should be allowed to form unions and petition the public for better working conditions, [B]but should aware that because they cannot draw the entire American public into talks over working conditions that they should not be allowed to strike over their grievances as other unions are allowed to do, since their commitment to the people should be paramount[/B]. But notice this sentence: "Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs." Roosevelt has remarked here that government employees have the right to represent themselves in unions. Not according to your beloved Governor Walker, who seems to think that government employees should not be allowed to form unions at all, and should be forced into any condition that his organization seems fit, throwing their rights to the wayside. Since the people of Wisconsin are striking not because of their working conditions being worsened by cost-cutting legislation, but are instead protesting the fact that the Governor is blatantly and admittedly trying to bust unions in the interests of his campaign contributors, I believe that Roosevelt would have stood by the strikers on this occasion. [url]http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445[/url] Now that that is out of the way, whether or not FDR would have personally stood by these workers has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of this governor. All of us can agree that there is a conflict of interest here, but you seem too blinded by your partisan, Fox-news inspired fanaticism to acknowledge that this governor, not all Republicans, but just this governor, is a piece of trash that needs to be removed from office.[/QUOTE] You just gave me another bone. Walker's Union busting counts as a condition, does it not? And aren't the Teacher's in Wisconsin illegally striking by protesting during their "Sick Days"?
What would you define as a "horribad" teacher, Glaber?
[QUOTE=Glaber;28271450][Comparison incompatible] Care to explain your logic here? I'm having trouble comparing funding to medicine. You see a school could have increased funding and still have the worst test scores in the state or nation. (See Detroit Public School yet again) Where as a doctor doesn't give up until all options are exhausted[/QUOTE] In the case of the Detroit school system, there are definitely issues other than funding going on. That doesn't mean cutting funding will help. I'm not immediately aware of specifics, but in Obama's recent State of the Union speech, he mentioned a new education system that was tested out. I believe some Detroit schools were involved and had dramatic progress. In any case, they had less than 10% graduation rates that rose to over 60% in one year as a result of the change. So, apparently things can be done, and are being done. But reducing funding isn't one of the steps involved.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28271450]You just gave me another bone. Walker's Union busting counts as a condition, does it not? And aren't the Teacher's in Wisconsin illegally striking by protesting during their "Sick Days"?[/QUOTE] Oh, so no more uncertainty over union busting/budget cutting? You're agreeing that he's taking away the rights of the workers? Good to see you've come around. We already went over that part of Roosevelt's statement. He says that they should not be striking so long as they are allowed to peacefully organize. Their right to organize is being stripped away, and as Roosevelt said in his earlier quotation, "The right to bargain collectively is at the bottom of social justice for the worker." You can't say "You have the unrestricted right to organize, but you must not strike, and, oh yeah, no organizing," and the only contradiction of ideology is between yours and his. Once again you've taken [b]part[/b] of one sentence of Roosevelt's statements and claimed that it validates your opinions, and it isn't fooling anyone. [b]Once again[/b], I have to remind you that FDR has no involvement in this situation and that your continual propagation of specific half-thoughts and sentence fragments of his that compliment your views is doing nothing to validate or justify the actions of the current Governor of Wisconsin. I'm not going to even acknowledge anything you write about him in your next post because the system on which you rely for ammunition in this argument is completely baseless, and everyone here is tired of humoring you. "I'll tell you what Scott, once you crush these bastards, I'll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time." "All right, that would be outstanding," Walker replies. There's no north on your moral compass if you don't retract support for this man immediately.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28269506]Personally I rather not, but if the test scores don't improve. Well, what would you do? This isn't an easy choice you know.[/QUOTE] Personally I'd like to fix that dam over there but if it doesn't stop leaking, well, what would you do?
[QUOTE=Glaber;28271450] I'm sorry to hear this. you mother shouldn't be fired for any reason as she sounds like a great teacher. Wasn't there a worse teacher they could of fired, or did the Unions get in the way? now from the sounds of things, your mother and that fired man deserve their benefits, but these teachers who abused their sick days to go and protest? I don't think so. They're protesting for their benefits, not for better supplies or a better learning environment, or anything related to improving education. Now if Teacher unions protected good teachers and not the horribad ones. Well then maybe I'd have some sympathy towards Union teachers [/QUOTE] The thing is, unions protect all teachers, and it's not the union's fault. The union only serves that function. The problem is, good teachers are fired because they make too much, or decide not to go into teaching because they will have shitty benefits or make shit money. My mother wasn't fired, she quit before they did anything and she then went to work for a hospital that had excellent health insurance. The problem is not the god damned unions. The problem is the system in which teachers are encompassed in. Teachers can make 20k- around 30k (Add a few thousand here and there depending on the state) for a school year. And, there benefits package can be horribly overpriced, such as it is for my mother who is working at another school right now. She's contemplating changing jobs because her teaching job, which she loves, isn't getting her what she needs. Good teachers leave for jobs that make better money because they need to support their families. A person who has no direct experience in this matter has no fucking idea what they're talking about. Glaber, you need to talk to some actual god damned teachers, who were part of unions, and had to quit their jobs because of financial reasons. You claim to understand this issue, but all you talk about are teachings who protest using their sick days. If anything, that's a damn good loophole to show their anger. You know what's another interesting loophole and sign of abuse? Companies using a post office box in the Carribean as a company HQ to avoid federal taxes. Everyone wants to exploit their resources for their own gain, everyone. And so what if these teachers use their sick days? They are finite. If they do become sick, then they won't be able to be sick and get payed. It's a double edged sword. They are using their sick days as a tactic and good on them. Be smart if you're going to fight something.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;28288026]Oh, so no more uncertainty over union busting/budget cutting? You're agreeing that he's taking away the rights of the workers? Good to see you've come around. We already went over that part of Roosevelt's statement. He says that they should not be striking so long as they are allowed to peacefully organize. Their right to organize is being stripped away, and as Roosevelt said in his earlier quotation, "The right to bargain collectively is at the bottom of social justice for the worker." You can't say "You have the unrestricted right to organize, but you must not strike, and, oh yeah, no organizing," and the only contradiction of ideology is between yours and his. Once again you've taken [b]part[/b] of one sentence of Roosevelt's statements and claimed that it validates your opinions, and it isn't fooling anyone. [b]Once again[/b], I have to remind you that FDR has no involvement in this situation and that your continual propagation of specific half-thoughts and sentence fragments of his that compliment your views is doing nothing to validate or justify the actions of the current Governor of Wisconsin. I'm not going to even acknowledge anything you write about him in your next post because the system on which you rely for ammunition in this argument is completely baseless, and everyone here is tired of humoring you. "I'll tell you what Scott, once you crush these bastards, I'll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time." "All right, that would be outstanding," Walker replies. There's no north on your moral compass if you don't retract support for this man immediately.[/QUOTE] Go watch the interview. Here's the link again: [url]http://video.foxnews.com/v/4554135/wis-governor-no-wrongdoing-during-prank-call[/url] His bottom line was that he never even knew the guy. Of course, now that I reviewed the interview, that answer doesn't sound like an answer. (Strike 1 Walker.) I'm not pulling my support immediately, but it is an option that I will use after 2 more strikes. (This doesn't mean I'll support the Unions). Oh and May I ask, What is Moral about collectively bargaining those changes undone later? What's Moral about blocking non-Union Workers? What's Moral about Unions forcing their member to pay dues that go to supporting Democrats ONLY. What's moral about forcing people to join a union they don't want to join? And for the Schools, What's moral about Firing your good teachers? What's moral about putting sports ahead of everything else? Walker was pranked,but Unions in the US have been screwing us over for longer than you know.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28301738] What's Moral about Unions forcing their member to pay dues that go to supporting Democrats ONLY.[/QUOTE] Maybe if Republicans were more supportive of unions they would get more money from unions. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;28301738]Walker was pranked,but Unions in the US have been screwing us over for longer than you know.[/QUOTE] I don't know the 50s were pretty great and nearly everyone was unionized. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] And what the fuck does morality have to do with anything.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28301738]What's Moral about blocking non-Union Workers? What's Moral about Unions forcing their member to pay dues that go to supporting Democrats ONLY. What's moral about forcing people to join a union they don't want to join?[/QUOTE] If they don't want to join they don't have to take the job. Here's the thing, clearly the teachers [I]want[/I] the Union because they're out there protesting. If people weren't happy with the unions, they wouldn't be protesting to protect it. It's as simple as that. And Union Dues only go to democrats because, usually, only democrats support Unions. If the a republican candidate supported the Unions, they would get the dues too. Unions aren't going to make contributions to a candidate that wants to destroy them.
And why Do Democrats support them? Because they get most of their campaign funds from them and wouldn't be able to spend as much on political ads without them?
[QUOTE=Glaber;28302255]And why Do Democrats support them? Because they get most of their campaign funds from them and wouldn't be able to spend as much on political ads without them?[/QUOTE] Because unions are good for people as a whole? [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] You lack the basic ability to connect the dots glaber.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28302255]And why Do Democrats support them? Because they get most of their campaign funds from them and wouldn't be able to spend as much on political ads without them?[/QUOTE] how about because they actually support the idea of unions? if it was just about getting money then I guarantee you that plenty of republicans would support unions too
[QUOTE=Glaber;28302255]And why Do Democrats support them? Because they get most of their campaign funds from them and wouldn't be able to spend as much on political ads without them?[/QUOTE] you can't be fucking serious dude. even you're not that fucking stupid. Unions provide a valuable task you've never realized and that you've just railed against out of your idiocy, naiviety and ignorance. A union defends the workers rights from oppression, while unions can get out of hand and have to much power, that's the nature of humanity, we're corruptible. BUT, most unions have a valuable function as a method to make a workers life sustainable. Cost of living has gone up, the dollars gone up, everythings gone up, and yet you're saying, getting rid of the ways for these people to fight for fair benefits and fair money is what we need? Hey dude, what happens when teachers don't get paid enough? don't have enough benefits, or enoguh reason to work as teachers? They find other jobs, abandoning the public education system because conservatives are slash happy when it comes to the education budget, because, clearly, education, is wrong. You're an example of that.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28302255]And why Do Democrats support them? Because they get most of their campaign funds from them and wouldn't be able to spend as much on political ads without them?[/QUOTE] And why do Republicans support big businesses? Because they get most of their campaign funds from them and wouldn't be able to spend as much on political ads without them?
[QUOTE=Glaber;28301738]Go watch the interview. Here's the link again: [url]http://video.foxnews.com/v/4554135/wis-governor-no-wrongdoing-during-prank-call[/url] His bottom line was that he never even knew the guy. Of course, now that I reviewed the interview, that answer doesn't sound like an answer. (Strike 1 Walker.) I'm not pulling my support immediately, but it is an option that I will use after 2 more strikes. (This doesn't mean I'll support the Unions). Oh and May I ask, What is Moral about collectively bargaining those changes undone later? What's Moral about blocking non-Union Workers? What's Moral about Unions forcing their member to pay dues that go to supporting Democrats ONLY. What's moral about forcing people to join a union they don't want to join? And for the Schools, What's moral about Firing your good teachers? What's moral about putting sports ahead of everything else? Walker was pranked,but Unions in the US have been screwing us over for longer than you know.[/QUOTE] I'm not asking you to throw support behind the unions. I do not blindly support any union, but I feel that they have the right to exist. I don't turn a blind eye when unions throw companies like GM out of business, believe me, I think that measures need to be taken. A wholesale destruction of public unions is not the answer, though. What upsets me about Walker is not that he is fighting against the basic right of assembly (protected under the 1st Amendment, even for government employees,) as all lawmakers have their choice of platform. What upsets me is that there is an obvious conflict of interest. Walker isn't fighting the unions on the basis of budget cuts or even on moral issues- it's clear that he is profiteering. You could say that big business support Republicans for being anti-union while unions support Democrats for being anti-big business. A Democrat who tries to nationalize businesses in order to personally profit and strengthen his party is as morally wrong as a Republican who disbands unions for the same reason. tl;dr: You're right to a certain point about the unions, and I'm not arguing on their behalf. I'm here to argue against Governor Walker.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28265438]But didn't FDR's suspicions come true? I mean who pays the Public school Teachers here. The Tax payer. And when they go on strike, who are they striking against? The Tax Payer. These Striking Teachers in Wisconsin also aren't really doing anything for their students. By going on strike like this, they effectively closed the Schools making the students have a longer school year to make up for the lost school days. If I was a Wisconsin student, I would be very upset with that. Just because it's not the 1950's, doesn't mean that the words of the past can't be right from time to time. History does repeat itself. The thing that changed was the Unions stance on Collective bargaining with the government.[/QUOTE] I was at the capital last week from tuesday until thursday. I am a Wisconsin resident and your fascist audacity is astounding. How about instead of repairing our budget by blowing up unions and assaulting labor we go back in time and stop walker from turning away over a billion dollars in federal money and rerouting it to california to his criminal cock brother friends. Why should the private sector deserve the fruits of our labor? Why should we be punished for the greed of the corporate oligarchy?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.