Should the city unions control city elections?
The mayor is taking another shot at the control over the election of by the union's.
This is an act of a city manager/mayor (like we have) and it limit the powers of those who are seeking more influence over city elections.
Being not too fond of the mayor decisions in the past I believe that the struggle over who is to control the city must be addressed.
Should it be left up to the citizens through the electoral process with a mayor, acting as a business executive or the city employees acting through their unions?
I think elections should be done with scratch-off lottery tickets.
It might raise enough money to help the working poor.
After witnessing the behavior of the public sector employees the last couple of days in Madison, WI, I don't want unions anywhere near the democratic process.
Fortunately, the 1st Amendment disagrees. Even public employees have the right of free speech on their own time.
Quote from: guido911 on February 19, 2011, 07:33:42 PM
After witnessing the behavior of the public sector employees the last couple of days in Madison, WI, I don't want unions anywhere near the democratic process.
Quote from: shadows on February 19, 2011, 03:51:33 PM
Should the city unions control city elections?
The Union as an organization, NO!
Individual citizens that happen to be Union members, the same as non-Union citizens.
Quote from: cynical on February 20, 2011, 12:33:51 AM
Fortunately, the 1st Amendment disagrees. Even public employees have the right of free speech on their own time.
Even with or without BS doctor's notes? Oh, and how damned thankful am I for the First Amendment when I see these signs carried by those that educate our children:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0SNPMM5eWBaSlBHsr5zJ2UHLbVo-1D4oirm_nge0qA4FJpQlB3g)
(http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/madison-072-e1298152222309.jpg)
Patiently awaiting lecture on free speech...
Yes. The same 1st Amendment that protects Fox News protects public employees
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 12:38:24 PM
Even with or without BS doctor's notes? Oh, and how damned thankful am I for the First Amendment when I see these signs carried by those that educate our children:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0SNPMM5eWBaSlBHsr5zJ2UHLbVo-1D4oirm_nge0qA4FJpQlB3g)
(http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/madison-072-e1298152222309.jpg)
Patiently awaiting lecture on free speech...
Quote from: cynical on February 20, 2011, 01:55:17 PM
Yes. The same 1st Amendment that protects Fox News protects public employees
Fox News? What's the matter, couldn't work Palin's name into the discussion? You apparently are not as clever as this protester in Wisconsin:
(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Feb-19-2011-W.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 03:00:03 PM
Fox News? What's the matter, couldn't work Palin's name into the discussion? You apparently are not as clever as this protester in Wisconsin:
(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Feb-19-2011-W.jpg)
No, but you sure did. Go wipe the drool. I mean, I'm pretty sure you have a Palin Altar facing northwest in your house somewhere. Sheesh.
Quote from: cynical on February 20, 2011, 12:33:51 AM
Fortunately, the 1st Amendment disagrees. Even public employees have the right of free speech on their own time.
But public employees apparently don't want anyone else to have the free speech right.
So? That doesn't mean that either they or their adversaries lack free speech rights.
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 03:10:16 PM
But public employees apparently don't want anyone else to have the free speech right.
Quote from: cynical on February 20, 2011, 03:54:33 PM
So? That doesn't mean that either they or their adversaries lack free speech rights.
Got it. Suppression of free speech acceptable to cynical.
Maybe you should try keeping your spittle confined to one thread. Thanks.
I've lost track of the score.
Is a Madison "Union operative" unplugging a speaker a demonstration of free speech by the "union"?
Straw man. You lose.
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 03:56:31 PM
Got it. Suppression of free speech acceptable to cynical.
Quote from: cynical on February 20, 2011, 06:25:43 PM
Straw man. You lose.
"Free speech for me but not for thee" is a "straw man"? Huh? And on the subject of "straw men", I guess you forgot your Fox News crap earlier.
I get it. If one union member (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in believing that person is actually affiliated with the union) does something stupid, that invalidates the arguments of the everyone associated with that person. I believe there is a term for that, and I will invoke it thusly:
(http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/098/193/original/tcitgo.jpg?1297290141)
Billo is an idiot, therefore you are also an idiot. Got it.
And in case you aren't affiliated with Billo, I'll throw in something stupid your crush said:
(http://alaskawtf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/palin-stupid.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 08:12:31 PM
I get it. If one union member (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in believing that person is actually affiliated with the union) does something stupid, that invalidates the arguments of the everyone associated with that person. I believe there is a term for that, and I will invoke it thusly:
(http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/098/193/original/tcitgo.jpg?1297290141)
Billo is an idiot, therefore you are also an idiot. Got it.
And in case you aren't affiliated with Billo, I'll throw in something stupid your crush said:
(http://alaskawtf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/palin-stupid.jpg)
That picture of her is just killing me...funny.
She should go shopping with her:
(http://www.csindy.com/images/blogimages/2011/01/28/1296251097-bachmann-crazy.jpeg)
When did I ever argue that you or the tea partiers, or anyone else was not entitled to free speech? In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that both sides are still entitled to free speech. That is why your argument was a straw man.
Now, how about explaining how my statement that Fox News is protected by the 1st Amendment is a straw man? It is a statement of legal fact. I chose Fox because I figured you felt that 1st Amendment protection was important so that you have access to its perspective. Perhaps I was wrong. Or are you trying to say that Fox News is not protected by the 1st Amendment? Is my belief, supported by many court decisions, that the constitution protects Fox News, along with The Nation, Daily Kos, and Breitbart, merely crap? You're just being goofy.
I know you'd much rather believe that everyone who disagrees with you is an evil totalitarian commie, but it's not true, any more than some people's belief that everyone on the right is an evil totalitarian nazi.
Do you know why I don't post pictures of stupid signs? Because the stupidity of protected speech is irrelevant. Because speech that is not protected is not what I am talking about ("fire in a crowded theater").
Have fun.
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 06:30:44 PM
"Free speech for me but not for thee" is a "straw man"? Huh? And on the subject of "straw men", I guess you forgot your Fox News crap earlier.
You don't have to go much further than our last local City Council election to notice the potent power of one of our very own well organized public service unions, the firemen. When Bill Martinson, District 5 commissioner, came out with a critical report on how payroll had almost doubled for the same number of fireman (and police), they were incensed enough to get out a door to door campaign and got him trounced out of office pronto. (replaced by Chris Trail.)
Cities, municipalities and even some small states have long been disinclined to go head to head with public service unions for this very reason. They can muster enough of a well organized campaign in a small turnout election, like our firemen did and get you fired (voted out.)
Obviously, it's a lot easier to give into union demands and let the public pick up the tab later then to go against the union and have them organize and vote you out of office. In private sector union campaigns, the union can always make things ugly for management but they can't organize and fire management the way a public sector union can.
The solution to bad speech is more speech. In other words, get out the vote and (relatively) small constituencies won't control elections.