Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe ink on the inauguration's barely dry, and already the country's biggest banks are maneuvering for more tax dollars. Thus far, they've received plenty, with few stings attached. For the auto industry, and particularly auto-workers, it hasn't been so easy. As part of the loan deal, General Motors and Chrysler agreed to accept a ban on strikes. Now how about a ban on bank lobbyists?
The Bush administration's auto bailout called for a reduction in hourly wages and an end to the UAW's "jobs bank," which provides assistance to workers on furlough. And that was only the beginning. Deep in the details, General Motors and Chrysler, as part of the loan deal, agreed to accept a ban on strikes. If their workers go on strike both would be in default of their loans and could be forced into bankruptcy. According to the Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News the default is part of the deal GM signed and Chrysler's loan deal has a similar provision.
Where's the outrage? You have to look to Canada for that. Speaking about the provision, the President of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, Ken Lewenza said that he was "shocked" to learn the companies had singed such a deal.
"It's just one more indication that the Republican party not only wants to challenge the strength of the (United Auto Workers), they want to take away every tool we may have in our arsenal to defend the interests of our members," Lewenza said in an interview. He says his union won't accept such a ban.
The UAW, apparently, isn't a party to the deal and up until now hasn't threatened a strike. If they do? Well, you can hear the tongue lashings already. Autoworkers hold the industry to ransom.
But think about it: we're likely to be hearing from no end of bank lobbyists and their puppets on TV and radio in the next few weeks. Citigroup's already received $350 billion and they can pay all the lobbyists they want -- and continue to freeze credit -- until the Treasury cries Uncle. Working people? The no strike ban is no different from hush money. They have to give up their rights if they want to eat. Can you imagine if they made a no-more lobbying demand of Citigroup?
Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv, which broadcasts weekdays on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) on cable (8 pm ET on Channel 67 in Manhattan) and online at GRITtv.org or streaming live on The Nation.com Mondays through Thursdays from noon to 2 pm ET.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Well, I'm sure some of our local Right will be happy with THAT part of "President Hank Paulson's" auto bail-out plan.
Posted by Mask at 01/26/2009 @ 10:12am
What would Patrick Henry have to say?
Posted by OneVote at 01/26/2009 @ 10:38am
I wonder if we could ever get a Congress and president brave enough to implement an outright ban on the scourge known as unionism (aka marxist/socialist mafia)?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 10:29am | ignore this person | warn this person
that bad, eh? without unions all that unions fought for would have granted anywhay, eh
ban unions?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2009 @ 10:40am
I wonder if we could ever get a Congress and president brave enough to implement an outright ban on the scourge known as unionism (aka marxist/socialist mafia)?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 10:29am
'The 18th century economist Adam Smith noted the imbalance in the rights of workers in regards to owners (or "masters"). In The Wealth of Nations, Book I, chapter 8, Smith wrote:
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combination of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate[.]
When workers combine, masters ... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, laborers, and journeymen.'
Source: Wikipedia
Which mafia again Liv?
Posted by OneVote at 01/26/2009 @ 10:59am
collective bargaining?
yeah, collect up your shit and get the hell out of here. go look for bargains at sprawl-mart.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2009 @ 11:18am
I wonder if we could ever get a Congress and president brave enough to implement an outright ban on the scourge known as unionism (aka marxist/socialist mafia)?-----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 10:29am
Drat that nasty 1st Amendment-
"Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
Posted by Mask at 01/26/2009 @ 11:34am
Without significant pressure from Washington, the banks will maintain the wide interest rate spreads to resuscitate depleted balance sheets, rather than pass along the savings to consumers, said Alan Fischer, executive director of the San Francisco-based California Reinvestment Coalition, an advocate group for low- income housing.
"The banks are just doing what is safest, but it doesn't reflect taxpayer needs or the public good," he said. "They've gone from making too many unsafe loans to making it almost impossible for the folks who really need the loans to get them. The financial institutions just aren't going to fix this on their own. You have to look to the new Congress and Washington, not the markets."
why are taxpayers paying for bailouts to banks which turn around and screw taxpayers????
why and how is this legal????
GM CEO Bob Lutz said two years ago "I don't believe in global warming." and something about hybrids being a joke and waste of time...
so, once again, why are taxpayers funding GM which think climate change is a joke and has no viable products???
it has nothing to do w/credit and ALL to do with having obsolete models nobody wants or needs...
The FIRST THING Obama is doing RIGHT NOW is allowing EPA to grant waiver for CA for emissions to have more stringent standards, which will make GM go bankrupt even more rapidly, with their bankrupty funded by our tax dollars....
Posted by jrs112 at 01/26/2009 @ 11:46am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 10:29am
What Liberties do you love again? I seem to not be able to find many in your comments.
If a CEO can hire a compensation consultant, why can't the unions hire one of their own to do the same thing? Would your world be a more productive place if each worker at GM negotiated his/her salary/benefits? How about if each member of the Service Employees Unions did that? Riverside Police and Fire?
Would you also tell police and firemen that their right to assemble does not fit with your dream of an America free from the evil influence of unions (that keep illegal aliens out of their shops and provide middle class wages)
Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2009 @ 11:59am
I wonder if we could ever get a Congress and president brave enough to implement an outright ban on the scourge known as unionism (aka marxist/socialist mafia)?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 10:29am
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left to speak up
----
You shall be known by the company you keep.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2009 @ 12:04pm
We will be living with the abominable precedent set by the corporate greed-mongers during this last administration for some time to come. These people envision a plutocratic , militaristic, global hog, fed by the world (yes, that's we the people, too)... with the expectation of universal admiration?
Yet the shill scientists, of the laboratory & the government, continue to prop the status quo.
Posted by Sorelish at 01/26/2009 @ 12:20pm
And Luvvy, remember your scriblings about the non-violent movement being without merit. If you think that violence is an acceptable method of achieving results, then what is your problem with union violence?
Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2009 @ 12:48pm
"I wonder if we could ever get a Congress and president brave enough to implement an outright ban on the scourge known as unionism (aka marxist/socialist mafia)?"
wow! that has to be the Extremist Quote of the Week!
Posted by darladoon at 01/26/2009 @ 1:01pm
"Unionism has ZERO to do with the right of political assembly."
and here is simply the Stupidest Quote of the Week!
Posted by darladoon at 01/26/2009 @ 1:02pm
liberty, you really need to take a nice, long, hot, herbal bath.....oh, and make sure you get some supplementary treatment(s) from your wife (if you know what i mean).
Posted by darladoon at 01/26/2009 @ 1:03pm
What is wrong with RICO, and the Copeland Act,among other antiviolence/racketeering laws on the books, instead of outlawing the right of people to assemble?
Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2009 @ 1:32pm
"Unionism has ZERO to do with the right of political assembly."
and here is simply the Stupidest Quote of the Week!
Posted by darladoon at 01/26/2009 @ 1:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So you ADMIT that unionism is nothing more than a POLITICAL organization and therefore has no basis in constitutionality! In your own ignorance you are agreeing!
Posted by comancheamerican at 01/26/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 1:42pm
and, based on your comments here re: nuking the Korean penninsula, advocating the slaughter of Palestinians and the flattening of Falujah... what is wrong with Teamster violence?
The ends justify the means, is what I have gleaned from reading your comments for 2 years.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2009 @ 2:13pm
Too much money to gobble up from the hog trough, to ban lobbyists, blackcoptermedia.com. Face we the people are boned! My granfather said if you want to be a millionaire get into politics! What you think was he right?
Posted by thesid at 01/26/2009 @ 2:14pm
Too much money to gobble up from the hog trough, to ban lobbyists, blackcoptermedia.com. Face we the people are boned! My grandfather said if you want to be a millionaire get into politics! What you think was he right?
Posted by thesid at 01/26/2009 @ 2:14pm
1. What kind of finite minds cheer the auto bailout which is nothing more than a political PAYOFF for a small labor group of bloated salaries and benefits representing a manufactoring expense which CANNOT be offset by product price and spells the eventual death of a job market?
Has no one the sense to see this protects less than 1% of the U.S.A. population and less than 2% of the labor force in the nation at the expense of all other workers in the nation?
2. Smaller banks are failing everywhere almost unnoticed daily! Now the left takes the same feeble MINDSET that they used concerning Iraq!
YOU are admitting that the undemocrat controlled CONGRESS acted again like the idiots they are on the financial collapse in the SAME way as they did on Iraq!
The real blame likes with the mortgage lenders and the greedy american publics misuse of credit and mortgage finance! Perhaps the government should let them all fail also!
Posted by comancheamerican at 01/26/2009 @ 2:14pm
"So you ADMIT that unionism is nothing more than a POLITICAL organization and therefore has no basis in constitutionality! In your own ignorance you are agreeing!"
no i didn't admit that, you did.
"this segway into non-violence has nothing to do with unionism which is often violent, and in fact some unions like the Teamsters openly advocate violence by the members"
oh, oh, my, i might have to amend my Stupidest Quote of the Week.
Posted by darladoon at 01/26/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 01/26/2009 @ 1:49pm
bublhhhgb bulub blub bubba-hotep
Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2009 @ 2:34pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 01/26/2009 @ 2:14pm
I don't know what you mean in half this comment, but...
Who thought up the bailout of the banks? Bush and his Treas. Sec, the congress then jumped on the bandwagon because the republicans mentioned used the same mantra as THEY did in Iraq. It was "If we do nothing the world will collapse". Then the dems joined hands and held their hands out for contributions from the same groups as the repubs.
Now, look up John Snow and Dan Quayle. Tell me who they work for.
My take is that GM went to Cerebus and Ford and said "We are failing, you don't want that. Help us out and you will get a cut."
It seems like the cons want to blame the unions for this failing, when in fact it is both union and managment that has failed. If the unions are going to take cuts, why do the managers get to keep their perks, or even their jobs? I have yet to read/hear a SINGLE comment from the cons about engineeers, design staff, administrators, executives, sales staff, advertising/marketing staff taking a pay cut. Why do they focus on unions? Why don't they make the same comments about the NYFD in these times of steep municipal tax shortfalls?
Fascism?
Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2009 @ 2:41pm
In the past one of the biggest threats to union solidity was the existence of company hacks masquerading as leaders at the local level. These guys were always ready to offer concessions to management because of the threat of global competition, environmental regulations or "commie takeover".
It appears that now the upper echelons need attention. Kudos to Ken Lewenza & the CAWU for standing firm. C'mon UAW!
Posted by Sorelish at 01/26/2009 @ 2:48pm
Oh My God! Worked on my book this weekend & saw no news. Just found out about the Drunken Negro Cookies being sold in NYC.
Emile must be out of his mind (Heh Heh)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/26/2009 @ 2:55pm
Unionism has ZERO to do with the right of political assembly.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 1:00pm
Thank you Chief Justice LVLIB.
So no problem if we take a stricter look at that "estblishment clause" in "freedom of religion", huh?
Posted by Mask at 01/26/2009 @ 3:04pm
Not to but in on your conversation Mask, old boy, but the brilliant constitutional interpreters of today have already restricted the religious rights inherent in the first amendment quite enough, thank you.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/26/2009 @ 3:09pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 3:21pm
Isn't the impetus on YOU to prove your contention?
BTW, I assume you'd ban the Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers and....the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, right?
Posted by Mask at 01/26/2009 @ 4:02pm
Posted by darladoon at 01/26/2009 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
git 'em darla!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2009 @ 4:13pm
Unionism has ZERO to do with the right of political assembly.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 1:00pm
After you get done with your legal brief on unions and the right of assembly, would you mind taking a swipe at the right of free speech.
'Unions are the First Amendment
By Nathan Newman - July 6, 2005, 1:21AM TPM Cafe
Most people don't burn the flag or say anything that is illegal under the law; they don't need the First Amendment to live their lives (and nobody got much use of the First Amendment for most of American history, since the courts basically ignored it until half a century ago).
But where workers normally lose all free speech is for the eight hours plus they work each day, where "the government" -- their employer -- can fire them if they say anything the boss doesn't like. Especially if they ask for a raise and the boss gets offended.
Except for the existence of unions, which bring the First Amendment to the workplace.
In fact, free speech is the essence of what unions are, something those not familiar with unions don't really understand.
Most people think unions go on strike, but workers have been quitting bad jobs or threatening to do so since the beginning of time. What makes a union dangerous is that workers TALK TO EACH OTHER and threaten to quit at the same time if they don't get their demands met.
And it's the talking that employers punish. In fact, even with supposed labor law protections, an estimated 20,000 workers are fired each year for union activity-- ie. talking.
When we talk about "labor rights", that's really all we are talking about, the right to talk, free speech. That's it.'
Posted by OneVote at 01/26/2009 @ 4:25pm
I WANT TO KNOW WHEN ALL THE CHARACTERS IN THIS BANK BAILOUT ARE GOING TO JAIL? THEY STOLE AND HAD HELP FROM OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEY SHOULD BE IN JAIL AS WELL. THIS IS A DISGRACE TO OUR WAY OF LIFE. THAT IF YOU WORK HAD YOU CAN GET AHEAD. NOW WE ARE TELLING THE WORLD YOU CAN'T BREAK THE LAW AND THE TAX PAYERS WILL BAIL YOU OUT. THIS IS INSANE.
Posted by ELGUAPO77 at 01/26/2009 @ 4:37pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 4:15pm
1. Still waiting on my question....would you say that the banning the Chamber of Commerce or the Association of Professional Insurance Agents...was Constitutional, then?
2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, it's not "prohibiting the free exercise"...if we start TAXING churches, is it? As for "establishment"...no more mangers in front of city hall and no 10 Commandements in the courtrooms.
Posted by Mask at 01/26/2009 @ 4:46pm
The first amendment protects "the right to peaceable assembly". It does not limited it to politically motivated assembly. So asking for proof that unions are "political assembly" is really a moot point, and has nothing to do with what is actually protected by the constitution.
Posted by Guiles at 01/26/2009 @ 5:08pm
LL says:"Mangers, or any religious depictions do not establish a religion. There is no govt official involved in the running of any religion in the US. No govt agency makes decisions regarding how any church or religious organization is run.
This is just the usual atheist nonsense."
So you would be fine with me placing Buddha's 8 fold path in front of the courthouse instead of the 10 commandments?
Posted by Guiles at 01/26/2009 @ 5:12pm
"this segway into non-violence Posted by darladoon at 01/26/2009 @ 2:29pm
the word you are looking for is segue.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/26/2009 @ 6:34pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009
So you are only opposed to certain aspects of unions such as employment at will infringement?
Do you agree that workers have the right to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions?
Is there a compromise in your book?
Posted by OneVote at 01/26/2009 @ 8:51pm
as if they read the commandments!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2009 @ 9:38pm
thou shalt clusterbomb little kids.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2009 @ 9:50pm
"Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet - only this time, it's the taxpayers who are getting screwed."
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2009 @ 9:52pm
"For $10, Fuld Sold Florida Mansion to His Wife
By LOUISE STORY Published: January 25, 2009
Housing prices are falling around the country, but this one sounds hard to believe: A seaside mansion on Jupiter Island in Florida, bought for more than $13 million five years ago, was just sold for $10."
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2009 @ 9:56pm
Bad news: we're back to 1931. Good news: it's not 1933 yet.
http://www.telegraph.
co.uk/finance/comment
/ambroseevans_pritchard/
4339501/Bad-news-were-back-to-1931.-
Good-news-its-not-1933-yet.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2009 @ 10:00pm
http://eastcoasteconomics.wordpress.com/
go now and gasp!
scroll to the bottom.
eek!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2009 @ 10:04pm
"No govt agency makes decisions regarding how any church or religious organization is run"
au contraire - courts are in the business of deciding whether a religion passes a test to qualify as a religion
Posted by urmygyro at 01/26/2009 @ 10:09pm
and all that money they are printing......
look for mega-inflation coming soon.
M0 has increased 98%! (dec. 2007 - dec. 2008)
plant those turnips.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2009 @ 10:23pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 5:07pm
So don't hit YOUR dog, huh?
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 07:21am
In my US there would be no collective bargaining. it is an evil perpetrated by marxists to destroy human dignity,self worth, and personal responsibility.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 10:42pm
mask, quick! -- to the archives!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2009 @ 08:20am
In my US there would be no collective bargaining. it is an evil perpetrated by marxists to destroy human dignity,self worth, and personal responsibility.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 10:42pm
i think the marxists have been messing with your bodily fluids.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2009 @ 08:24am
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2009 @ 08:24am
First off...it's PRECIOUS bodily fluids! ("Purity Of Essence...POE, OPE...that's got to be the recall code!")...heheh
Second, Larry took a deep dive off his looney board with this one. Somehow he thinks it's Constitutional to "ban unions", but NOT in banning HIS professional organization because "they don't engage in collective bargaining".
Okay, Larry, explain how collective bargaining is un-Constitutional. Wouldn't that mean that simply "asking the boss for a raise" could be made illegal too? Asking the boss to NOT fondle your ass (as a woman...or maybe a man) could be made illegal?
Third, he obviously employs a double standard both for this issue and on OTHER aspects of the 1st Amendment. Whereby right of association isn't denied with a "union ban"...but don't DARE say that a public building displaying a creche is "establishing a religion"!
It's not only bad Constitutional scholarship...it's hypocrisy.
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 09:03am
"In my US there would be no collective bargaining. it is an evil perpetrated by marxists to destroy human dignity,self worth, and personal responsibility."
What an ass.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 10:38am
Larry, you are all for violence when it suits your feelings.
You are for CEO's being able to hire consultants to help them take more shareholder money.
You are, perhaps, the biggest hypocrite here.
You hate America and many of it's core institutions. I have a hard time finding any of these "liberties" that you claim to love. You want more government control of speech. You want government control of interstate commerce(spying). You want people held indefinetly with no charges being filed. You want the president to have almost unlimited power (if he agrees with you).
You may dance and sing around these issues, but that is what it boils down to. You want an Iraqi style government, ostenstivly run by clerics with a veneer of secularism for cover. Zero regulation to protect people from poisons and dangerous products, zero workplace safety regulation, zero worker protection from companies that exploit for extreme profit, zero regulation of poisons released into the air.
You have yet to provide a single instance of anybody being denied the right to practice their religion in their house of worship or their own home, yet you take swipes at the foundation of our judiciary as if they have outlawed Jesus.
I find you closer to Usama Bin Laden than to Thomas Payne.
Have a nice day being the victim of your fellow citizens.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 10:48am
no larry, you just don't know yourself.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 11:26am
Unfortunately courts have upheld that as a "right". In my US there would be no collective bargaining. it is an evil perpetrated by marxists to destroy human dignity,self worth, and personal responsibility.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/26/2009 @ 10:42pm
What is your view of Walesa's Solidarity movement in Poland? Wasn't the genesis of that movement assertion of rights to collectively bargain with the Central Committee (Communists Liv)in Moscow?
It would seem that you hate of collective bargaining is the love of the hand of economic and political repression against those who are disenfranchised. The capitalists were all for Solidarity for both economic and political reasons. I just don't think you can neatly package collective bargaining as marxist conspiracy. Abuse by The Teamsters that you cite doesn't conclude your argument. You are disparaging collective bargaining based on an isolated example. Should we ban conservatives because of the corruption of say a Duke Cunningham? I think would say no - one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch.
What you want is the status quo - you want to maintain the relationship between servant and master. Our Country was founded on principles that at least in part was an attempt to throw off that yoke. Your position is contrary to those principles, and is more closely aligned to the corrupted practice of the ideology you despise.
Posted by OneVote at 01/27/2009 @ 11:27am
1. I've never commented on CEO's hiring consultants so your comment is bogus
I have asked you repeatedly why they can do it, but unions can't. No repsonse. From "your side" is the refrain that CEO's get their packages approved by boards, so it is Ok, ignoring that those CEO's agree to collective bargaining agreements, approved by boards.a
2. What core institutions have I cited as hating?
Judges, special prosecuters, our public education system, the CIA, the State Dept (filled with marxists, socialists, and liberals)
4. Govt control of interstate commerce is part of the constitution (Art 1, Sect 8)
That does not include the intrusive and illegal spying on communications, that you want to allow.
5. Enemy combatants should be held indefinitely just as is stipulated for POW's in the Geneva Convention. Are you against the GC?
Who decides the status? The liberals in the CIA? Sec Def Rumsfeld? You? What if you're wrong? You and Rummy have been wrong at least 480 times.
6. I want ZERO involvement of religion in govt. I've repeatedly said so
You want govt policy set by theological principles, YOUR principles according to what you think is "real" christianity.
8. on the judiciary-nonsense-provide a quote from me backing your charge (you can't)
You have made many comments about christians being under attack from "activist judges", you have claimed people have been denied their right to practice. You have yet to provide a single example, but you have made the claim. I am not MASK, I don't archive your words.
9. Presidents-I want Dem or Repub pres to have the war powers needed (ask Mask)
This remains to be seen. If Obama changes Bush's policies, let's see how well you go along.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 11:41am
3. I have never said here that I want to control speech. In fact I have said the opposite
Are you serious? With a straight face you wrote that?
"In my US there would be no collective bargaining. it is an evil perpetrated by marxists to destroy human dignity,self worth, and personal responsibility."
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 11:54am
Best way to keep unions out of your work environment...not govt regulation or disregard for the 1st amendment...
pay people well, treat them like human beings, not resources akin to commodities,don't hire illegal aliens, don't shop with people that hire illegals, have trade policies that encourage other nations to do the same.
Problem solved.
next...
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 12:11pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 09:55am
No, same standard, Larry. You can't just "ban unions" because of "collective bargaining"....anymore than you can "ban professional associations" because of lobbying or because they only hire qualified people.
There is NO Constitutional means by which such a law could be upheld.
You just hate unions and want them banned and don't care if it's Constitutional or not. And it's not hyperbole (as noted above) to point out that the FIRST thing that fascist AND Communist dictatorships do...
is ban unions.
BTW, CRABWALK, yes. Larry is an equal opportunity authoritarian. He wants the maximum amount of power invested in the President regardless of party.
It's just if it's Obama, he wants the country to fail under such a Presidency.
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 1:47pm
"He wants the maximum amount of power invested in the President regardless of party."
Which is not what the Founding Fathers intended, nor is it to be found in the Owners Manual. It is a new, and living Const that the neo-cons want to invent, while decrying the same on "the left".
Shock and suprise.-
What can I say about someone that would deny the right to picket, because it is not "speech". There is no common ground to start a debate. I am not aware of any court that has agreed with the good Mullah Larry.
And then he claims to be "mainstream". what a bunch of crap.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 2:26pm
the moral downfall of the nation.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:24pm
Where in the constitution does it say anything about the govt setting moral policy?
Can YOU get to a moral center without your religion? If I am not mistaken that is a claim made about us atheists, that we have no morals because we don't have a god, religion or some such nonsense. If you cannot find your moral center without (picking and choosing from) your Good Book, how can you then say that you do not want a theocracy?
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 2:30pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 2:24pm
1. If wishes were horses...and when you finally ENDED your attempt to prove that banning unions was Constitutional, you resort to "I was only saying what I'd LIKE to see". Fine, Larry, I'd like to see it'd made illegal for a tax-excempt church from begging for money on TV. Just get bugged by it. BUT I still believe in the 1st Amendment and their right to do that and don't make childish wishes.
2. Facts are facts. And the historical fact is that fascist dictatorships AND Communist dictatorships immediately ban free unions (those not controlled by the State) or ANY union. You called for the same. Enough said.
3. You said ""Maybe it will be good to see this country fall..."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
You can either apologize and take it back...or live with it here thrown in your face...often. Apologize and take it back and I personally will drop the whole thing...even erase the saved material. Kind of like...uh...you know who!
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 3:23pm
I guess a main difference between you and me Larry, is that I recognize my hypocrisy.
Any mook that would go by the nic "luvsliberty" but would deny people the right of free assembly....
---
{ By promoting infanticide, they are setting a moral policy.
By stepping into family planning, they are intruding into the moral decisions of families.
By promoting sexual deviancy as in homosexuality, they are promoting a moral policy.
}
What a bunch of hooey. What are you didning on today?
The govt is not "promoting infanticide". They are providing money so that citizens can make their own choice, or have liberty.
Bush was into family planning too. They just removed one option, or liberty.
It is merely your opinion that homosexuality is "deviant". And, last I checked, Obama was not "promoting" it, he was just saying that citizens have a right to be themslelves, or have liberties.
I know you don't take me seriously Rev, but YOU ARE NOT THE MAINSTREAM. You are farther from the center than most of those you hate. You have more in common with Bin Laden than you do with most Americans.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 3:32pm
Shit, it is not even supplying money for abortion in many cases, it is supplying money to clinics that MAY offer abortion. These clinics also offer actual planning and contraceptives to PREVENT abortion. YOU would hold that up, causing abortions in those that don't have good information?
Yep, you meet the criteria for fascist.
Another funny thing (as you constantly ignore Poland circa 1980's) is that it was the commies that helped defeat the fascists in the 30's -50's. Maybe you would be in favor of Franco, Mussilini etc? Without your feared socialists and commies, they would probably have won and stayed in power.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 3:36pm
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 3:23pm
Good stuff.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/27/2009 @ 3:37pm
I made a statement based upon my responsibility as a minister where this country seems to be headed morally, not politically (though pushed by political entities).
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 4:06pm
'If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches, and poor men's cottages princes' palaces. It is a good divine that follows his own instructions; I can easier teach twenty what were good to be done, than to be one of the twenty to follow mine own teaching.'
Merchant of Venice
Posted by OneVote at 01/27/2009 @ 5:05pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 4:06pm
You conflate those two things (morals and politics) CONSTANTLY.
The point stands...your POLITICS are on the outs, so you want America to collapse...not just in a (by YOUR standard) TRAITOROUS way...but like a brat throwing a temper tantrum.
Posted by Mask at 01/27/2009 @ 8:59pm