Left wing libs should be ecstatic

graphicgr8s · 12-11-2012, 10:20 PM

Well with Michigan going to a right to work state you libs should be ecstatic about it. You always claim to be pro choice. Well now you get a choice in Michigan. I'm pulling for you.

Heie · 12-12-2012, 01:56 AM - **5 Likes**

Originally posted by graphicgr8s

Well with Michigan going to a right to work state you libs should be ecstatic about it. You always claim to be pro choice. Well now you get a choice in Michigan. I'm pulling for you.

Why would you post this?

Better yet, why would you do so--shaped in such a manner--that reeks of such vitriolic undertones?

Where is the article source that you gleaned this unbiased reportage from?

You are a Republican, thank you for pointing that out. For future reference, just keep in mind that next time it would be greatly appreciated if you made it less difficult to discern.

What infuriates me is the hypocrisy. A word that isn't found anywhere near it in the dictionary or thesaurus, but my own lexicon has evolved over the years to where "hypocrisy" is synonymous with "politics." But only if they are liberal politics, of course.

We have arrived at a point where the bipartisanship of the only country that matters the world over has left us with such a seemingly irreparable schism. A point, where moderate or even the most conservative of notions brought forward by the voice or pen of a Democrat, is inherently wrong for no other reason than the source, rather than the content. There is a reason it has become known as the "Party of No" and those other liars, economic and political illiterates (or is that innumerates?) and general not-fit-to-feed-let-alone-elect are "Libtards." Are you proud of that? You must be...

So what have you accomplished? Nothing but urinate on my hope that someday we are capable of mature and lucid discourse as opposed to being an uneducated, immature, distorted, combative, and overall uncooperative mass of "Rights" and "Wrongs." And all in the name of God and Country.

So at the end of the day, it begs the question: are you really that sophomoric? A terrible journalist/reporter? Or just simply a prick that takes pleasure in instigating and vilifying those whom you disagree with?

Very Respectfully,
Heie

P.S. want to know a secret? I'm a Republican too (a Pro-Contraception, Pro-LGBT, and Pro-Choice one), but because of failures in judgment such as these -- more ubiquitous than I feel comfortable admitting, much less contemplating -- I am constantly ashamed of the Greater Opposition Party. In retrospect I guess that I means I'm disqualified from claiming party membership because it's not the approved platform.

Here's an asanine thought: maybe if we spent half as much time and energy vilifying and sabatoging the "opposition" we might actually accomplish something worthwhile...

kswier · 12-12-2012, 05:13 AM

I think it is necessary to define what "right to work" means (it seems to mean different things in different states).

My understanding (which could be incorrect...hard to find reliable information on this) is that Michigan's right to work legislation simply gives those who were hired the choice to join the Union and pay the Union dues or not to. It is unclear to me whether people can be hired as specific "non-Union" employees.

It seems like the legislation may weaken Unions a bit (which could actually be a good thing), but it is not designed to dismantle them. Overall, I have been very happy with many of the actions Michigan's governor has taken and how he has kept his rhetoric constructive instead of destructive. I hope this bill does not mark a deviation from the non-partisan rhetoric (it was certainly passed in a poor manner).

JohnInIndy · 12-12-2012, 07:11 AM

Didn't Obama call for civility?

You Tube

Guess that's only for Republicans he wants civility

Steven Crowder assaulted at union protest in Michigan | Fox News Video

Quote:

“If, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse,” he said, “let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.”

Quote:

The Wall Street Journal: "Obama Calls for a More Civil Nation"

"President Barack Obama called on the nation to resist the temptation to assign blame for a shooting rampage here that may never fully be explained, but to emerge from the tragedy a more thoughtful, civil nation."

Last edited by JohnInIndy; 12-12-2012 at 09:53 AM.

wildweasel · 12-12-2012, 09:16 AM

Well said Heie. I know you live in Europe so must have a good idea of what we think of US political divisiveness and all the crap that goes with it over here. It's always nice to be reminded that not all Americans are so full of schadenfreude and hate for each other that they want their nation to pull together. In the UK we find it appalling that so many citizens from a nation that supposedly puts its own people first are so opposed to universal health care, for example, just to mess up those of a different political persuasion. All seems rather childish and of the school yard.

normhead · 12-12-2012, 09:21 AM

First of all, he called for humility, not civility... I ask you, what kind of person actually misquotes someone, right in the first line of their commentary, and then continues as if they were going to have an ounce of credibility after that? Second. That's a great speech. you should be ashamed if your political blinders prevent you from seeing it that way without the corruption and vitriol of your own mind filtering it into something it' not. Third, these political commentators you point to are as bad as you. I could look at exactly the same thing they look at and come to a different conclusion.

The first rule of investigation, ignore what people have written about something, ignore what the public perception is, ignore the spin of those paid to create spin, go to the original source and see for yourself what was said. I look at that speech realizing you see something to mock, I see something to be admired. I don't need some right wing airhead spinning in the wind and grasping for audience to tell me what I should think about it.

It's too bad so many right wingers and left-wingers do, but right wingers seem to be the worst. The fact that you differentiate between right wing violence and left wing violence just makes you an angry violent person. Real humans oppose any violence from anywhere, without regard to political orientation.

By the way, in Canada unions members reflect the general public in supporting right wing or left wing politicians. The fact that some one is demonstrating to support a union, does not make them either right or left. Thus your supposition that the union members who assaulted this man were lefties is flawed right out of the box.

I'd ask for an apology on behalf of lefties everywhere, but I doubt one would be forth coming if requested. Next time you blame something on some one try and have a fact to stand on.

VoiceOfReason · 12-12-2012, 09:22 AM - **1 Like**

I did find it hilarious when I saw some of the union people say they were going to make sure to campaign against those republicans who voted to do that. As if they didn't do that already? I remember heading for an anime convention in Dearborn MI in 2008 and driving past some of the huge union places. Up on their signs they had all kinds of vote Democrat and vote Obama stuff. I for one think this will be a good thing in that it will allow workers to not have their money funneled straight to the Democrat party. I also think it will be great to give workers a real choice too!

I worked in a forced union shop before. I did not like having nearly 60 dollars taken out of my check every two weeks. Having that happen put my wages back in line with non-union shops. The union also did NOT save me or my co-workers when our shift was eliminated. Sure, unions in some cases do good, and in the past they definitely did good, but now do they really give that much of a benefit to workers? If so, let them prove their benefit by retaining old workers and attracting new ones up there in Michigan.

jeffkrol · 12-12-2012, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

I did find it hilarious when I saw some of the union people say they were going to make sure to campaign against those republicans who voted to do that. As if they didn't do that already? I remember heading for an anime convention in Dearborn MI in 2008 and driving past some of the huge union places. Up on their signs they had all kinds of vote Democrat and vote Obama stuff. I for one think this will be a good thing in that it will allow workers to not have their money funneled straight to the Democrat party. I also think it will be great to give workers a real choice too!

I worked in a forced union shop before. I did not like having nearly 60 dollars taken out of my check every two weeks. Having that happen put my wages back in line with non-union shops. The union also did NOT save me or my co-workers when our shift was eliminated. Sure, unions in some cases do good, and in the past they definitely did good, but now do they really give that much of a benefit to workers? If so, let them prove their benefit by retaining old workers and attracting new ones up there in Michigan.

Does it make you feel better that their wages can be cut and corporate profits funneled to Republicans????
Sometimes you need to take a bit of bad w/ the good...............

Of course w/ less money for Dems they won't have to spend it on PAC's... so they can raise wages of workers.. ect.. good luck w/ that....

VoiceOfReason · 12-12-2012, 10:36 AM

I'd actually much rather see the money completely taken out of politics, but that's not goign to happen.

normhead · 12-12-2012, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

I'd actually much rather see the money completely taken out of politics, but that's not goign to happen.

Exactly. Unions giving money to political parties is ridiculous. But I also notice Bell Canada give money to political parties, not the Greens but the more main stream parties as do many corporations. WHen I pay my phone bill, I want to pay for my phone, not political parties. Same when I pay for groceries. When I pay for my gas I don't want to pay for lobbyists promoting pipelines and increased oil sands production. But I don't really have a choice do I? It's amazing how many people who don't want labour getting into the political arena to promote their interests, are completely in favour of big corporations doing the same. To me a company I patronize taking money I give them for providing me with a service and using that money for political contributions or lobbying is committing fraud. I want a choice. I want there to be options for me to get my phone from a company that doesn't engage in those activities. When I get my choice, I'll be much more favorable to giving union members theirs. In the meantime, every major corporation out there is taking money from me and using it to promote causes I oppose, and that's wrong.

downhill · 12-12-2012, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by JohnInIndy

Didn't Obama call for civility?

Obama Calls For Civility In Wake Of Tucson Shooting - YouTube

Guess that's only for Republicans he wants civility

Steven Crowder assaulted at union protest in Michigan | Fox News Video

Not much different than a right wing nut job running into a crowded mall with an assault rifle.

While anyone supporting workers rights would be hopeful that all this will be peaceful, emotions still run deep.

Same side of coin. While the right to own assault rifle groups (NRA) would hope that nut cases didn't get loose with them... it's still going to happen.

Turn off Fox News and think for yourself.

Ratmagiclady · 12-12-2012, 11:31 AM

No, by the way.

"Right to work" is just Roveian doublespeak for "Taking away workers rights and union-busting."

It doesn't give workers more choices, it takes away any recourse against the big money. Look at the actual figures on conditions, pay, and benefits in those states where they've been 'Right to work' a while.

For the workers, it's just more 'race to the bottom.' The last thing any worker needs, Union or not, is for the big money to have things *more* on their terms in the labor market. That's not 'choice.' Not for the working folks. That's removing choice. As if we needed more downward pressure on wages and benefits out there.

Parallax · 12-12-2012, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

"Right to work" is just Roveian doublespeak for "Taking away workers rights and union-busting. It doesn't give workers more choices,"

No, just the opposite. They now have the right to work without joining a union if they choose to do so; while maintaining the right to join, if that's their choice. Workers will have more choices now than before.

jeffkrol · 12-12-2012, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

No, just the opposite. They now have the right to work without joining a union if they choose to do so; while maintaining the right to join, if that's their choice. Workers will have more choices now than before.

bwahahahahahahahahaha.............sorry that is just historically funny..............

Blue · 12-12-2012, 11:48 AM - **1 Like**

Teddy Roosevelt recognized that Big Labor and Big Business were equally dangerous if allowed to run unchecked. Forcing people to join a union is just as bad as forcibly preventing them from joining a Union.

12-11-2012, 10:20 PM	#1
graphicgr8s Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 229	Left wing libs should be ecstatic Well with Michigan going to a right to work state you libs should be ecstatic about it. You always claim to be pro choice. Well now you get a choice in Michigan. I'm pulling for you.

12-12-2012, 01:56 AM - 5 Likes	#2
Heie Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 968	Originally posted by graphicgr8s Well with Michigan going to a right to work state you libs should be ecstatic about it. You always claim to be pro choice. Well now you get a choice in Michigan. I'm pulling for you. Why would you post this? Better yet, why would you do so--shaped in such a manner--that reeks of such vitriolic undertones? Where is the article source that you gleaned this unbiased reportage from? You are a Republican, thank you for pointing that out. For future reference, just keep in mind that next time it would be greatly appreciated if you made it less difficult to discern. What infuriates me is the hypocrisy. A word that isn't found anywhere near it in the dictionary or thesaurus, but my own lexicon has evolved over the years to where "hypocrisy" is synonymous with "politics." But only if they are liberal politics, of course. We have arrived at a point where the bipartisanship of the only country that matters the world over has left us with such a seemingly irreparable schism. A point, where moderate or even the most conservative of notions brought forward by the voice or pen of a Democrat, is inherently wrong for no other reason than the source, rather than the content. There is a reason it has become known as the "Party of No" and those other liars, economic and political illiterates (or is that innumerates?) and general not-fit-to-feed-let-alone-elect are "Libtards." Are you proud of that? You must be... So what have you accomplished? Nothing but urinate on my hope that someday we are capable of mature and lucid discourse as opposed to being an uneducated, immature, distorted, combative, and overall uncooperative mass of "Rights" and "Wrongs." And all in the name of God and Country. So at the end of the day, it begs the question: are you really that sophomoric? A terrible journalist/reporter? Or just simply a prick that takes pleasure in instigating and vilifying those whom you disagree with? Very Respectfully, Heie P.S. want to know a secret? I'm a Republican too (a Pro-Contraception, Pro-LGBT, and Pro-Choice one), but because of failures in judgment such as these -- more ubiquitous than I feel comfortable admitting, much less contemplating -- I am constantly ashamed of the Greater Opposition Party. In retrospect I guess that I means I'm disqualified from claiming party membership because it's not the approved platform. Here's an asanine thought: maybe if we spent half as much time and energy vilifying and sabatoging the "opposition" we might actually accomplish something worthwhile... Last edited by Heie; 12-12-2012 at 02:06 AM. Reason: typo

12-12-2012, 09:21 AM	#6
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	First of all, he called for humility, not civility... I ask you, what kind of person actually misquotes someone, right in the first line of their commentary, and then continues as if they were going to have an ounce of credibility after that? Second. That's a great speech. you should be ashamed if your political blinders prevent you from seeing it that way without the corruption and vitriol of your own mind filtering it into something it' not. Third, these political commentators you point to are as bad as you. I could look at exactly the same thing they look at and come to a different conclusion. The first rule of investigation, ignore what people have written about something, ignore what the public perception is, ignore the spin of those paid to create spin, go to the original source and see for yourself what was said. I look at that speech realizing you see something to mock, I see something to be admired. I don't need some right wing airhead spinning in the wind and grasping for audience to tell me what I should think about it. It's too bad so many right wingers and left-wingers do, but right wingers seem to be the worst. The fact that you differentiate between right wing violence and left wing violence just makes you an angry violent person. Real humans oppose any violence from anywhere, without regard to political orientation. By the way, in Canada unions members reflect the general public in supporting right wing or left wing politicians. The fact that some one is demonstrating to support a union, does not make them either right or left. Thus your supposition that the union members who assaulted this man were lefties is flawed right out of the box. I'd ask for an apology on behalf of lefties everywhere, but I doubt one would be forth coming if requested. Next time you blame something on some one try and have a fact to stand on. Last edited by normhead; 12-12-2012 at 09:28 AM.

12-12-2012, 10:52 AM	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason I'd actually much rather see the money completely taken out of politics, but that's not goign to happen. Exactly. Unions giving money to political parties is ridiculous. But I also notice Bell Canada give money to political parties, not the Greens but the more main stream parties as do many corporations. WHen I pay my phone bill, I want to pay for my phone, not political parties. Same when I pay for groceries. When I pay for my gas I don't want to pay for lobbyists promoting pipelines and increased oil sands production. But I don't really have a choice do I? It's amazing how many people who don't want labour getting into the political arena to promote their interests, are completely in favour of big corporations doing the same. To me a company I patronize taking money I give them for providing me with a service and using that money for political contributions or lobbying is committing fraud. I want a choice. I want there to be options for me to get my phone from a company that doesn't engage in those activities. When I get my choice, I'll be much more favorable to giving union members theirs. In the meantime, every major corporation out there is taking money from me and using it to promote causes I oppose, and that's wrong. Last edited by normhead; 12-12-2012 at 11:25 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Wing Shot	Bob Harris	Post Your Photos!	6	12-26-2011 12:24 AM
Machinery Hakutaka White Wing	RobG	Post Your Photos!	5	12-31-2010 10:20 PM
Left attacks the left...	jeffkrol	General Talk	10	08-11-2010 01:02 PM
@All the libs who said I can't talk politics until I post some photos	Borislav	General Talk	17	04-15-2010 08:43 AM
I'm having a funny problem with aperture. It's not working as it shold be	learnphotography	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	04-04-2010 11:32 PM

12-12-2012, 05:13 AM	#3
kswier Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 426	I think it is necessary to define what "right to work" means (it seems to mean different things in different states). My understanding (which could be incorrect...hard to find reliable information on this) is that Michigan's right to work legislation simply gives those who were hired the choice to join the Union and pay the Union dues or not to. It is unclear to me whether people can be hired as specific "non-Union" employees. It seems like the legislation may weaken Unions a bit (which could actually be a good thing), but it is not designed to dismantle them. Overall, I have been very happy with many of the actions Michigan's governor has taken and how he has kept his rhetoric constructive instead of destructive. I hope this bill does not mark a deviation from the non-partisan rhetoric (it was certainly passed in a poor manner).

12-12-2012, 09:16 AM	#5
wildweasel Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Plymouth Posts: 359	Well said Heie. I know you live in Europe so must have a good idea of what we think of US political divisiveness and all the crap that goes with it over here. It's always nice to be reminded that not all Americans are so full of schadenfreude and hate for each other that they want their nation to pull together. In the UK we find it appalling that so many citizens from a nation that supposedly puts its own people first are so opposed to universal health care, for example, just to mess up those of a different political persuasion. All seems rather childish and of the school yard.

12-12-2012, 09:22 AM - 1 Like	#7
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I did find it hilarious when I saw some of the union people say they were going to make sure to campaign against those republicans who voted to do that. As if they didn't do that already? I remember heading for an anime convention in Dearborn MI in 2008 and driving past some of the huge union places. Up on their signs they had all kinds of vote Democrat and vote Obama stuff. I for one think this will be a good thing in that it will allow workers to not have their money funneled straight to the Democrat party. I also think it will be great to give workers a real choice too! I worked in a forced union shop before. I did not like having nearly 60 dollars taken out of my check every two weeks. Having that happen put my wages back in line with non-union shops. The union also did NOT save me or my co-workers when our shift was eliminated. Sure, unions in some cases do good, and in the past they definitely did good, but now do they really give that much of a benefit to workers? If so, let them prove their benefit by retaining old workers and attracting new ones up there in Michigan.

12-12-2012, 10:25 AM	#8
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason I did find it hilarious when I saw some of the union people say they were going to make sure to campaign against those republicans who voted to do that. As if they didn't do that already? I remember heading for an anime convention in Dearborn MI in 2008 and driving past some of the huge union places. Up on their signs they had all kinds of vote Democrat and vote Obama stuff. I for one think this will be a good thing in that it will allow workers to not have their money funneled straight to the Democrat party. I also think it will be great to give workers a real choice too! I worked in a forced union shop before. I did not like having nearly 60 dollars taken out of my check every two weeks. Having that happen put my wages back in line with non-union shops. The union also did NOT save me or my co-workers when our shift was eliminated. Sure, unions in some cases do good, and in the past they definitely did good, but now do they really give that much of a benefit to workers? If so, let them prove their benefit by retaining old workers and attracting new ones up there in Michigan. Does it make you feel better that their wages can be cut and corporate profits funneled to Republicans???? Sometimes you need to take a bit of bad w/ the good............... Of course w/ less money for Dems they won't have to spend it on PAC's... so they can raise wages of workers.. ect.. good luck w/ that....

12-12-2012, 10:36 AM	#9
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I'd actually much rather see the money completely taken out of politics, but that's not goign to happen.

12-12-2012, 11:25 AM	#11
downhill Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 38	Originally posted by JohnInIndy Didn't Obama call for civility? Obama Calls For Civility In Wake Of Tucson Shooting - YouTube Guess that's only for Republicans he wants civility Steven Crowder assaulted at union protest in Michigan \| Fox News Video Not much different than a right wing nut job running into a crowded mall with an assault rifle. While anyone supporting workers rights would be hopeful that all this will be peaceful, emotions still run deep. Same side of coin. While the right to own assault rifle groups (NRA) would hope that nut cases didn't get loose with them... it's still going to happen. Turn off Fox News and think for yourself.

12-12-2012, 11:31 AM	#12
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	No, by the way. "Right to work" is just Roveian doublespeak for "Taking away workers rights and union-busting." It doesn't give workers more choices, it takes away any recourse against the big money. Look at the actual figures on conditions, pay, and benefits in those states where they've been 'Right to work' a while. For the workers, it's just more 'race to the bottom.' The last thing any worker needs, Union or not, is for the big money to have things more on their terms in the labor market. That's not 'choice.' Not for the working folks. That's removing choice. As if we needed more downward pressure on wages and benefits out there.

12-12-2012, 11:43 AM	#13
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady "Right to work" is just Roveian doublespeak for "Taking away workers rights and union-busting. It doesn't give workers more choices," No, just the opposite. They now have the right to work without joining a union if they choose to do so; while maintaining the right to join, if that's their choice. Workers will have more choices now than before.

12-12-2012, 11:45 AM	#14
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by Parallax No, just the opposite. They now have the right to work without joining a union if they choose to do so; while maintaining the right to join, if that's their choice. Workers will have more choices now than before. bwahahahahahahahahaha.............sorry that is just historically funny..............

12-12-2012, 11:48 AM - 1 Like	#15
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Teddy Roosevelt recognized that Big Labor and Big Business were equally dangerous if allowed to run unchecked. Forcing people to join a union is just as bad as forcibly preventing them from joining a Union.