The Legacy of Clinton Sucks
 

Aurora Community College? I'm not scared.

The Legacy of Clinton Sucks
 

why are you racist? What about bobby Byrd and company attracts you?

The Legacy of Clinton Sucks
 

This is all you got? Sad. I guess my punking of you has rendered you witless. Can you create an Ashton Kutcher sock for me?

The Legacy of Clinton Sucks
 

I'm not sure what to come back with. OTOH, I was faster than most chicks, on the other hand, maybe she is Olympic class or something. I don't want out her. Does she lick her hand while she runs track? If so, she might be able to take me.

I think I had the punk'd sock on Infirmation.

The Legacy of Penske Sucks
 

Penske is posting from a black site in asia.

The Legacy of Penske Sucks
 

Yes, black sites in asia, I am all about diversity. thanks for getting my back cooter, I take back those things I said. welll, some of them.

First, the public employees are not required to join the unions. If they already are union members, they can quit if they don't like the use of union dues. Non-union members can pay representation fees (less than union dues) to have the unions bargain on their behalf just as if they were union members. The requirement for annual written opt in election gives nothing additional to the workers, and is intended to only burden the unions.

Corporations also lobby like crazy, but where is the requirement that they seek annual permission of their individual shareholders to use the monies they invest for lobbying?

Corporations are not allowed to donate to Federal campaigns. I am pretty sure the same is true for most states. They have to be able to justify their contributions to shareholders, and if the shareholders don't like it they can always sell their shares. It is much easier to sell shares than it is to leave ones job.

2. Although don't expect these socialist lefties to udnerstand a market based rationale.

Why doesn't a market based rationale work for unions? Why must we have an additional regulatory level for them?

Moderate-radical Islam: a Religion of Peace and Tolerance part 1471
 

I said "significant" ME opinion. Popular opinion is still largely insignificant in the ME.

Egypt and Jordan. (Also -- more underground -- Saudi Arabia and (if you count them as ME) Pakistan.)

Iran, SA and some others. Post 9/11, the Saudis have turned the cash spigot on and off at our request from time to time to enforce better behavior.

Your enthusiasm lags behind your knowledge.

S_A_M

I agree. the regulatory protections accorded unions should be removed.

Um, I don't think this CA law is going to apply to what CA unions do w/r/t federal campaigns, is it?

And my impression is that the new regulation of union dues would ban any political donations -- not just campaigns. For sure corporations donate soft money on "issues" in federal campaigns.

I think unions should be able to donate to stuff to the extent that Pfizer and Glaxo etc. are supporting that HUGE ad campaign for the one drug proposition. Though, having their names at the end of every ad, for me tends to reinforce the idea that that proposition is mainly good for drug companies, and not so much for actual people getting prescriptions.

Moderate-radical Islam: a Religion of Peace and Tolerance part 1471
 

Cite? I want to see public statements from ME leaders calling for the Palestinians stop the terror and calling the Iranians to task. any outrage at the UN? Real outrage? Sanctions?

Is the same reaction as if Sharon had said "the Palestians should be wiped from the face of the Earth"?

Oh please, that support and the relations are tepid at best. With friends like those......

No arms, $$$ or other material support is coming into Gaza via Egypt?

turning it on and off is not the answer. Turning it off would be. How about Syria and Egypt? You can't be serious leaving them off.

You are either delusional or naively optimistic.

Well, I'm convinced - corporations are barred from any influence on shaping government policy if they can't contribute directly to campaigns. They can't form PACs or 527s, either. Damn, that is SO UNFAIR!

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that corporations do not have to report in detail where their contributions (by the way, what contributions?) go, but the opposite is true for the unions.

Also, the union members do not have to leave their jobs if they don't like the political activities of the union - they leave the union. They retain their jobs, pay a representation fee, and get the collective bargaining.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

To hell with kissing up to pro-lifers by explaining all the terrible things that could happen if a young woman is forced to get Daddy's consent to abort. You'll never convince them with any of it. Most teenage-consent supporters would also require wifey to get hubby's permission (ex: Alito) which conflicts with the "she's only 14 and this is a medical procedure" reasoning. All this "consent/notification" does is allow someone else to try to obstruct the process and prevent the abortion.
http://www.titaniumarts.com/buttons/images/bsom.gif

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

I am praying for you Dianne. The babyjesus still loves you.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

There you go again, Whoop.

This may not be true of public employee unions, but there are many unions that are close shopped. In other words, you have to be a member of the union to work there.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

I knew you remembered. Those were the days.

:yum:

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

The reasons for Becky's letter is there are many prochoice people that support this proposition. If all pro-choice people were against in California it would lose overwhelmingly. This letter was not for the pro-lifers, but for the "pro-choice" people who don't understand the issue.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

Spanky, you know I love you, platonically, like as in the pre-pubescent crush I had on Nixon as a young lad in the 60s, but perhaps they do understand the issue and that is the problem for the culture of death.

The Wall Street Journal had a poll this weekend which is consistent with the numbers the MSM liberal media has, 70 plus % of Americans support parental notification and consent. Over 50% support spousal notification. Sorry, you are in the minority, but it is probably good for you to see how the other half lives, considering our team controls the ball, sts.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

Was that the poll that had a 54-36 margin for appoval of allowing abortion (with certain restrictions similar to those currently in place)?

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

Possibly. did I say I was for abortion being illegal? Certainly you can tell the difference between anti-Roe-ism and anti-abortion, no?

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

Not these days. The "states' rights" argument has clearly gone out the window with efforts to federalize antiabortion rules and many other things traditionally left to the states to regulate.

But, yes, in principle there is a difference.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

good answer, good answer. Survey says, YES. Remember, Burger, I am all about the principle.

True. I had a couple of union cards from summer jobs, back when I was young and carefree. However, this proposition doesn't apply to unions other than those of the public employees - hence my skepticism.

Stupidly, I had not noticed that it didn't apply across the board to unions. I guess that maybe state public employee unions are not subject to NLRB or something? Interesting.

Not really. No offence. The only good union is a busted union.

the old mean hank would have asked if this wasn't redundant.

Being good really does feel better!

okay- time to vote
 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/7/222033/148

Okay, Ty would use this blog as "evidence." it now blames the France islamic republic birth pains on Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
problem: MSM has been trying to say the riots are not tied to religion but only to the rioters being poor. Can we please pick whether the riots are simply poor people who happen to be Islamic, or Islamic jihadis acting out against the war.

SHP, Gat, all you- VOTE for your choice please.

what is sort of funny is that the riots started in suburbs where lots of Airport workers lived- the rioters are the kids of baggage handlers etc. The riots will KILL french tourism so its sort of ironic that kids rioting for more money wil actually be poorer because their dads will be laid off.

okay- time to vote
 

It is one more battle in the global crusade. thank the babyjesuschristsuperstar W has taken the battle to the terrorists in Iraq, rather than let them take it to us. And good riddance to the Fifth Republic.

Hey Frenchies, va t'faire enculer chez les Jihadis!

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/paro...gotiations.jpg

Liberals: the party of Tolerance
 

Liberal leader and demo spiritual guide Al Francken apparently is a major league homophobic racist.......who'd have thunk it from such a thoughtful tolerant lib:

Of course, I’m not really calling Al Franken a racist. Relying on solid logic and indisputable facts would constitute “unfair meanness.” And, who knows, Al might challenge me to a fistfight.

Sorry Spanky, but this is incorrect. Whether you are a public sector employee (see Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977)) or a private sector employee (see Pattern Makers v. NLRB , 473 U.S. 95 (1985)), NO employee can be required to be a union member.

Even if a contract requires union membership as a condition of employment (the closed shop clause), all that can be required is that the employee pay a fair share fee to the union. These "fair share fee payers" are not members of the union, do not have the right to attend meetings or vote on contracts, but they do enjoy all of the rights of the terms of the contract. The fair share fee usually ends up being around 93-94% of the total dues amounts.

The bottom line is that employees can be forced to pay money, but they cannot be forced to be "members" of a union.

aV

what does the fair share fee go to? can you make sure none goes to politicing?

When I worked for the United States Dept of Commerce as a quasi-judicial employee, there was a union that represented me. We were completely free to not join. It wasn't really seen as a stigma not to be a member. I beleive about half the workers were members. We were a lean union that picked it's fights.

I wonder whether places like UAW shops have a similar "No stigma" atmosphere to non-membership. Kind of doubt it.

Do people actually do this? It seems like the union guys would kick his/her ass or at least consistently threaten to do so.

Exactly. That shit is not going to fly with any construction union.

Depends on the area of the country. Depends on how strong the union is. Depends on how often the employee may get "visits" at home. But yes, employees make the choice not to be a member of the union all the time.

aV

That is what the 2nd Amendment is for.

What does that mean?

I've disliked unions ever since my Labor Economics class in college.