Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Bernie!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    You said “The SCOTUS made a decision based on some rationale”.
    Um they made the decision based on the 1st Amendment.
    Big difference.

    But I’m done here.
    You do not understand what I am saying...

    The fact that I mentioned in my first post my disagreement with the idea that money equals freedom of speech should have made it clear that I understood very well that the SCOTUS justified its decision based on the 1A.

    The 1A does not justify high direct contributions because of overriding corruption concerns, and I am saying that similar corruption considerations could be used in the Citizen United case to justify limitations of the amount of money that can be spent.




    Last edited by pamak; 28 Feb 20, 18:42.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

      I don't see that, but then I'm not looking through the delusional prism you are.
      If you are not aware of the SCOTUS decision regarding union mandatory contributions, you need to change the media you use for your information.

      https://www.opb.org/news/article/jan...ry-union-fees/

      SCOTUS Ruling Prohibits Mandatory Union Dues For Public Employees

      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pamak View Post

        If you are not aware of the SCOTUS decision regarding union mandatory contributions, you need to change the media you use for your information.

        https://www.opb.org/news/article/jan...ry-union-fees/

        SCOTUS Ruling Prohibits Mandatory Union Dues For Public Employees
        It was this part of your post #147 I was referring to;
        " ... you just add an additional reason for why the citizen united decision is wrong."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

          It was this part of your post #147 I was referring to;
          " ... you just add an additional reason for why the citizen united decision is wrong."
          For this part I was referring to the part in your post where you said that "The few times I've HAD TO be a member of a trade union, I noticed they spent my (dues) money for candidates and issues I didn't support"
          This s sound like an additional reason to oppose the Citizen United which applies to union spending too.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

            For this part I was referring to the part in your post where you said that "The few times I've HAD TO be a member of a trade union, I noticed they spent my (dues) money for candidates and issues I didn't support"
            This s sound like an additional reason to oppose the Citizen United which applies to union spending too.
            I explained the difference already. Corporations and their stockholders are a voluntary agreement. The stockholder can either vote out the current management and change the corporation's course or divest themselves of their investment in the company at will.

            Unions on the other hand, particularly in Closed Shop states (see above map) are mandatory membership and forced dues paying. A worker in such a union has no choice in paying their dues unless they are willing to quit their job and lose the pay and benefits that go with that. Thus, when their union supports issues or candidates they disagree with money they gave the union ostensively to further collective bargaining issues and protect their job, is as the Supreme Court found an onerous and wrong thing. That was the finding in Beck v CWA

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...merica_v._Beck

            Comment


            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post


              Unions on the other hand, particularly in Closed Shop states (see above map) ]
              How old is that map? Michigan has been a right to work state for a decade now.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                For this part I was referring to the part in your post where you said that "The few times I've HAD TO be a member of a trade union, I noticed they spent my (dues) money for candidates and issues I didn't support"
                This s sound like an additional reason to oppose the Citizen United which applies to union spending too.
                I really don’t know why I bother but I will explain part of the reasoning behind citizens united.

                A corporation is a one or more individuals that have voluntarily agreed to associate.
                Each one of those individuals has rights under the first amendment.
                Those individuals do not lose their rights under the first amendment when they agree to enter into a voluntary association. The same logic applies to unions. The types of speech those corporations or unions support is never relevant to the discussion of their 1st amendment right.

                You can complain about money in politics, but the court has no authority to determine what is an acceptable amount of money to spend.
                You can dislike the decision, but it is the correct one under the 1st amendment.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • 0BDE3578-DB97-4247-89CC-1E96BADA5069.png

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tuebor View Post

                    How old is that map? Michigan has been a right to work state for a decade now.


                    Happy?

                    Oh, and Democrats are proposing to end "Right-to-Work" and force union membership...

                    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...t-to-work-bill

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...3a0_story.html

                    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/o...nsylvania.html

                    Of course, the only reason Right-to-Work has decimated unions is that unions did it to themselves by being utter @$$es to their members and often to the companies they operate in.

                    Seems the Democrats have never met an oppression they didn't love.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                      I really don’t know why I bother but I will explain part of the reasoning behind citizens united.

                      A corporation is a one or more individuals that have voluntarily agreed to associate.
                      Each one of those individuals has rights under the first amendment.
                      Those individuals do not lose their rights under the first amendment when they agree to enter into a voluntary association. The same logic applies to unions. The types of speech those corporations or unions support is never relevant to the discussion of their 1st amendment right.

                      You can complain about money in politics, but the court has no authority to determine what is an acceptable amount of money to spend.
                      You can dislike the decision, but it is the correct one under the 1st amendment.
                      Except with unions the association isn't necessarily voluntary or even a willing one.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                        I really don’t know why I bother but I will explain part of the reasoning behind citizens united.

                        A corporation is a one or more individuals that have voluntarily agreed to associate.
                        Each one of those individuals has rights under the first amendment.
                        Those individuals do not lose their rights under the first amendment when they agree to enter into a voluntary association. The same logic applies to unions. The types of speech those corporations or unions support is never relevant to the discussion of their 1st amendment right.

                        You can complain about money in politics, but the court has no authority to determine what is an acceptable amount of money to spend.
                        You can dislike the decision, but it is the correct one under the 1st amendment.
                        You still failed to see the contradiction with the restriction of first amendment on direct donations which includes individuals and corporations and how corruption considerations have been used for such restrictions.



                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          I explained the difference already. Corporations and their stockholders are a voluntary agreement. The stockholder can either vote out the current management and change the corporation's course or divest themselves of their investment in the company at will.

                          Unions on the other hand, particularly in Closed Shop states (see above map) are mandatory membership and forced dues paying. A worker in such a union has no choice in paying their dues unless they are willing to quit their job and lose the pay and benefits that go with that. Thus, when their union supports issues or candidates they disagree with money they gave the union ostensively to further collective bargaining issues and protect their job, is as the Supreme Court found an onerous and wrong thing. That was the finding in Beck v CWA

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...merica_v._Beck
                          Irrelevant to my point which was that he was complaining about unions. This gives one more reason for justifying my position against the citizen united decision which applies also to the unions.

                          And yes, the people who are into unionized work also have the option to leave and go to a place where there is no union or open their own business or vote for a union leadership that represents their objective. So choices exist for both workers and investors.

                          And something else since I am not sure if you understand how voting in corporations work. In corporations, the more stocks one has the more votes he can cast. This together with the fact that the majority of stocks is concentrated within a very small percentage of the population (from memory roughly 20% despite all the 401Ks and other investments of the middle class), this means that the idea that most stockholders have the freedom to change the management is just a myth. In reality, the corporate management reflects the will of a wealthy elite.

                          A broader and philosophical point is that the issue of a disagreement between an individual and a group which forces the former to contribute to causes that the latter pursues can be morally justified. The classic case is the existence of the government. As long as the lack of government is considered to be detrimental to people's interests, one can justify some restrictions of freedom that a government can impose on an individual who at a certain point may disagree with the goals of the government

                          The same logic can be used for individuals and unions. As long as one sees the existence of unions as a necessary requirement for a fair bargain between workers and the capital (which has already concentrated its power in a corporation) some restrictions can also be justified. The extend of those restrictions can be debated but the idea that the existence and power of unions is morally justified only when every worker agrees with their objective makes no sense.

                          As to your link, I do not see how it relates to my point. What unions can do with fees that can collect from non-members does not address my point which is that even if there is full agreement among all union members in pursuing a certain goal during a political campaign, there must still be spending limitations and in fact, there are already certain limitations for direct contributions. As it was mentioned before

                          Currently, labor unions are allowed to give up to $15,000 annually to a single political candidate
                          Last edited by pamak; 29 Feb 20, 03:28.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            You still failed to see the contradiction with the restriction of first amendment on direct donations which includes individuals and corporations and how corruption considerations have been used for such restrictions.


                            I just don’t have the smarts to understand your ever changing point.

                            You said the Citizens United decision was wrong.
                            I challenged that and asked you, repeatedly, to support that claim.
                            You have yet to explain why, under the law, the decision was wrong. That’s because you can’t.
                            You don’t have to like the result, but it is completely consistent with the 1st Amendment.

                            The fact that corruption may exist in donations (Of course it does) isn’t a 1st Amendment issue, but since you know you can’t support your original claim that the decision was wrong, you desperately want to change the subject. Sorry, that’s an admission you’ve lost.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • The arguments of the Democrats is pure hypocrisy : Obama got $ 10 million from Wall Street in 2008, Hillary got $ 64 million from Wall Street in 2016 .Obama got when he was no longer potus $1,2 million from Wall Street for 3 speeches . Bill Clinton got $ 500000 from Russian friends of Putin for one speech .
                              What the Democrats mean is that only Democrats can receive money from Wall Street and Unions, not Republicans .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post



                                Happy?

                                Oh, and Democrats are proposing to end "Right-to-Work" and force union membership...

                                https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...t-to-work-bill

                                https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...3a0_story.html

                                https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/o...nsylvania.html

                                Of course, the only reason Right-to-Work has decimated unions is that unions did it to themselves by being utter @$$es to their members and often to the companies they operate in.

                                Seems the Democrats have never met an oppression they didn't love.
                                Partly right:

                                Except: Unionized members police your country-enforce your laws- fly your jet airliners- guide your traffic- and, since collective bargaining determines thier contracts- are your physicians...


                                the higher up the curve you go- in 2020- the more likely it is you are unionized...
                                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X