Revolution in Wisconsin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

You think someone who keeps blocking you from walking away until you sign something isn't trying to intimidate you?

Intimidation isn't just the threat of physical harm. :rolleyes: It's the threat of being socially ostracized; economically ruined; or having the government employees you pay for threatening unspecified boycots of business and possibly government service unless you give them more money .

---

Social ostracism *i.e. peer pressure* is "thuggery" now? Are you even listening to yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

While I think Dread is pushing it - Yes of course they are.

---

"thug" is not a synonym for obnoxious or annoying. It is a synonym for violent criminality. Boycotts are perfectly legal and they don't generally connote violent action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

. Seeing how public unions have shrunk dramatically over the decades,

---

You really need to either start paying attention, or stop lying. You've been told two or three times so far in this thread *with citations* that public union membership has been up! Private unions are down, public are doing quite well for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

You really need to either start paying attention, or stop lying. You've been told two or three times so far in this thread *with citations* that public union membership has been up! Private unions are down, public are doing quite well for themselves.

---

Sure, if recent hiring numbers are up from adding "public sector workers" then public union membership would go up, too. Public unions have lost clout and power over the decades, and they're not nearly as important as the flood of private money. You're talking membership numbers, I'm talking donor dollars. Money means power in the US. :bored:

Union Muscle Eclipsed by High-Profile Conservative Groups During 2010 Election

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011...ve-groups.html

Changing goalposts as usual...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Changing goalposts as usual...

---

How's that? Public unions have shrunk dramatically over the years. Oh damn, I left out the word power. I'll rewrite it even though the context was obvious. Public unions have shrunk dramatically over the years *in their ability to use dues to influence elected officials*. Are you and Fuzzy done being picky yet? :rolleyes:

If public unions still had the clout it's claimed they have, these bills to ban collective bargaining wouldn't have been on the agenda.

Yeah, because public sector unions get support from Republicans.

That reinforces my point, Loki. If these unions had the power you assign them, more Democrats would have been elected or retained seats. If teacher unions have such clout, they'd be able to convince the tax-paying public that teachers are dedicated public servants, instead of the greedy selfish leeches they're portrayed to be.

I'll keep saying it --- I think teachers and unions are getting a raw "public relations" deal here, being scapegoats for the legislators and administrators with myopic and twisted priorities. :sour:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That reinforces my point, Loki. If these unions had the power you assign them, more Democrats would have been elected or retained seats. If teacher unions have such clout, they'd be able to convince the tax-paying public that teachers are dedicated public servants, instead of the greedy selfish leeches they're portrayed to be.

I'll keep saying it --- I think teachers and unions are getting a raw "public relations" deal here, being scapegoats for the legislators and administrators with myopic and twisted priorities. :sour:

---

Erm, no one has argued that the unions control 51% of the voters. According to your logic, corporations don't have a lower of power now because Democrats can still get a majority of congressional (or state) seats. :bored:

You're deliberately twisting the definition of "clout".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Sure, if recent hiring numbers are up from adding "public sector workers" then public union membership would go up, too. Public unions have lost clout and power over the decades, and they're not nearly as important as the flood of private money. You're talking membership numbers, I'm talking donor dollars. Money means power in the US. :bored:

Union Muscle Eclipsed by High-Profile Conservative Groups During 2010 Election

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011...ve-groups.html

---

:looks at the blog entry: So for one of three major forms of contributions, labor got significantly outspent, in 2010. In 2004 it spent about is as much in the same area as it did in 2010, in 2006 it only spent half as much, and in 2008 it spent almost twice as much. Looks like a fairly volatile metric from which you can't draw the sort of metric or conclusion which you are trying to draw. I note that no such numbers were provided for any of the compared groups, even ones like the US Chamber of Commerce which aren't in any way new. I also note that the blog highlights another area of spending, an area where unions spent half as much again as they did in the compared area *again, no statistics of any sort are forthcoming for the other organizations which the blog was comparing, in that area* and there is a third area which never gets mentioned at all, for any group.

You have absolutely no basis even for the claim that they've lost relative clout, a claim which is nothing like the one I'd replied to, which pretty clearly addressed union membership. Even if that claim were actually what you just shifted position to, you'd still be wrong. You're claiming that they've been losing relative clout "for decades" yes? When their relative contribution according to the one metric you're citing *as incredibly incomplete as it is* shows that their spending as a percentage of the total was actually higher in 2006 than it was in 2004, and that while their relative share was a bit smaller in 2008 than it was in 2006, it was actually larger in absolute terms? This is the basis for your claim that they've shrunk dramatically. It is directly and absolutely contradicted by your own cited data.

edit: Huh. By the way, I just noticed. None of the above really matters, and your own citation is absolutely worthless. It's discussing unions as a whole, both private and public. This thread is pretty exclusively focused on the public sector unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Erm, no one has argued that the unions control 51% of the voters. According to your logic, corporations don't have a lower of power now because Democrats can still get a majority of congressional (or state) seats. :bored:

You're deliberately twisting the definition of "clout".

---

They have other "interests" beyond education, y'know. And each interest group has lobbyists and PACs. You're forgetting that (D) will accept corporate/industry dollars for the sake of bringing jobs to their state, whether financial services or oil drilling.

This is also the kind of political posturing so many are fed up with. Instead of actually discussing how to improve education and have smarter, more capable and productive kids, they cut straight to the money or a certain group like unions. Then everyone's bickering about money and unions, and losing sight of Education.

So don't lecture me about twisting the definition of clout, or power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

This thread is pretty exclusively focused on the public sector unions.

---

That's news to me. Can't imagine how this got to so many pages simply discussing public unions. Could have sworn politics, agendas, funding, and tax dollars for educators were in here somewhere. :donkey:

But have it your way. Get rid of public unions altogether. Ban them, make them illegal. Teachers, cops, and firefighters can start a PAC or 527. They'll still have their free speech and free association, to try and buy influence legislators. Surely that will fix our problems in those public sectors. And we'll all live happily ever after. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's news to me. Can't imagine how this got to so many pages simply discussing public unions. Could have sworn politics, agendas, funding, and tax dollars for educators were in here somewhere. :donkey:

But have it your way. Get rid of public unions altogether. Ban them, make them illegal. Teachers, cops, and firefighters can start a PAC or 527. They'll still have their free speech and free association, to try and buy influence legislators. Surely that will fix our problems in those public sectors. And we'll all live happily ever after. :rolleyes:

---

It has to be as unpleasant to pretend the world is as simple and binary as you make it appear. So why do you insist on that pretense? Are those voices in your head saying the things you keep mis-attributing to the rest of us forcing you to look at things that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

It has to be as unpleasant to pretend the world is as simple and binary as you make it appear. So why do you insist on that pretense? Are those voices in your head saying the things you keep mis-attributing to the rest of us forcing you to look at things that way?

---

Fuzzy appealing to emotion, how quaint. :donkey:

I'd love to see constructive ideas from either party, that truly addresses our national educational problems and shortcomings. Focusing on teachers' unions or public unions is one of those "binaries" that falls short of a long term comprehensive goal. Must be those voices in my head, Shirley. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I can understand how you would confuse the concept of "good old boys" with a union, but a discussion about the ludicrous idea that unions support or protect illegal activities would go no where with you, especially considering the thuggery claims everyone has already laughed at.

---

Does he even understand what unions are for? In contrast to the Internal Affairs department?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Social ostracism *i.e. peer pressure* is "thuggery" now? Are you even listening to yourself?

"thug" is not a synonym for obnoxious or annoying. It is a synonym for violent criminality. Boycotts are perfectly legal and they don't generally connote violent action.

---

There is no legal definition of thuggery, it's not a criminal classification. And I think legal intimidation by government employees is legal thuggery, primarily because they are government employees and their threats of private boycotts inevitably spill-over to the public services they are providing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's news to me. Can't imagine how this got to so many pages simply discussing public unions. Could have sworn politics, agendas, funding, and tax dollars for educators were in here somewhere. :donkey:

---

BS GGT, this thread has been exclusively about public sector unions. My entire beef is with public sector unions, I have much fewer qualms about the legal status of private sector unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Does he even understand what unions are for? In contrast to the Internal Affairs department?

---

Yes, they are a means for public workers to apply political pressure for more money and obscure work rules at the expense of the taxpayer.

This may surprise you, but 85% of the US private sector is non-unionized. So far the world hasn't ended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Yes, they are a means for public workers to apply political pressure for more money and obscure work rules at the expense of the taxpayer.

---

You're not even attempting to have a valid fact based discussion. You take a question and run with barely related talking points, even when you completely miss the mark :(

You both are asking for a snippy summary when you suggest that I don't know what public unions do and how they interact with government. I know what they do, I get a front-row view every M-F.

:bulb: I didn't ask for anything, much less a snippy summary, I only pointed out another failed attempt to oversimplify and generalize as you continue to push your anti-union agenda. You crossed the line with the thuggery remarks way back, but you really jumped the shark with suggesting unions favor illegal activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

There is no legal definition of thuggery, it's not a criminal classification.

---

That's correct, we're talking about English. "Thug: A tough and violent man, especially a criminal" "Thug: a cruel and vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer," they all go on like this. The secondary definition always seems to be the proper name for a member of the Thuggee cult. We got the word from the Hindi "thag," for sly, fraudulent, cunning, and dishonest, again all not things one associates with boycotts.

Again, union members have proven willing to use physical intimidation tactics. There is a time and place for referring to "union thuggery." A boycott, whose only relation to such activity is that unions *along with pretty much every other mass-based organization in existence* are willing to use it as a tactic, isn't it. That you think it is demonstrates that you've gone completely over the bend.

I guess he also wants us to ban Greenpeace and other NGOs who also called repeatedly for boycotts due to particular issues. Maybe next he wants to tell us that Greenpeace consists of thugs?

I do have to say that it's a bit ironic to see left-wing groups take the same kind of a "either you're with us or you're against us" stand that they condemned Bush for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

That's correct, we're talking about English. "Thug: A tough and violent man, especially a criminal" "Thug: a cruel and vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer," they all go on like this. The secondary definition always seems to be the proper name for a member of the Thuggee cult. We got the word from the Hindi "thag," for sly, fraudulent, cunning, and dishonest, again all not things one associates with boycotts.

Again, union members have proven willing to use physical intimidation tactics. There is a time and place for referring to "union thuggery." A boycott, whose only relation to such activity is that unions *along with pretty much every other mass-based organization in existence* are willing to use it as a tactic, isn't it. That you think it is demonstrates that you've gone completely over the bend.

---

A "ruffian" is a bully. Are these public union officials not bullying people? You can try and dig yourself into a semantic hole all you want, ultimately the issue is about government employees unduly intimidating people into supporting their pay scale.

I think it's mostly within reason if private sector unions want to engage in these kinds of boycots. But I think it's an entirely different story when government workers do it. I've made this distinction dozens of times now, but you seem to be ignoring that.

Scenario: members of the local Police Benevolent Association association show up at your front door and ask you to put a sign in your front yard that says, "Cops deserve better pay." You refuse. They take down your address and two weeks later you get a latter saying that the police won't accept your "neutrality" and assume you want cops to make less money. And they are going to tell every cop on the force that you think the police should be paid less.

How is this not undue intimidation from government employees? That's thuggish enough for most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

I guess he also wants us to ban Greenpeace and other NGOs who also called repeatedly for boycotts due to particular issues. Maybe next he wants to tell us that Greenpeace consists of thugs?

---

For the twentieth time, I am drawing a very clear distinction between government unions and NGOs/private sector unions. Greenpeace can try whatever boycotts they want, best of luck to them. But government workers shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

A "ruffian" is a bully.

---

A ruffian is a physical bully. Again I must reference how violence is always part of the meaning in the use of "thug." *except, apparently, to your incredibly sensitive sensibilities, which seem to interpret peer pressure as violence* Something we have seen unions use, but which is not anywhere in evidence HERE.

Quote:

---

ultimately the issue is about government employees unduly intimidating people into supporting their pay scale.

---

At this point, the ultimate issue is about how you have lost every last one of your marbles.

You can go in and out of semantic holes all you want, intimidation isn't always violent.

Once again, is the scenario I outlined not entirely legal intimidation?

Quote:

---

Scenario: members of the local Police Benevolent Association association show up at your front door and ask you to put a sign in your front yard that says, "Cops deserve better pay." You refuse. They take down your address and two weeks later you get a latter saying that the police won't accept your "neutrality" and assume you want cops to make less money. And they are going to tell every cop on the force that you think the police should be paid less.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

You can go in and out of semantic holes all you want, intimidation isn't always violent.

---

Intimidation isn't always violent, but thuggery is. There is absolutely no point discussing anything else with you until you acknowledge how batshit insane it is to call a common political tactic, the go-to standard for legitimate economic pressure, "thuggery." If you can't see how warped that is, then you can't see anything else either.

It's really "batshit insane" to consider intimidation a form of thuggery?

Have you taken a step back recently? I mean, I know you're into the semantics, but holy shitsnacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

It's really "batshit insane" to consider intimidation a form of thuggery?

Have you taken a step back recently? I mean, I know you're into the semantics, but holy shitsnacks.

---

I'm with him on this one. Also he wasn't referring to intimidation, well at least not in the form of "Nice house, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

It's really "batshit insane" to consider intimidation a form of thuggery?

Have you taken a step back recently? I mean, I know you're into the semantics, but holy shitsnacks.

---

It's batshit insane to keep referring to boycotts, a commonplace, legitimate, non-violent means of applying economic pressure, typically for political ends, as a criminally violent endeavor. If you can't acknowledge that it's not "thuggery" then you can't form a rationale conclusion about anything. The very best you're aspiring to is being the stopped clock that's right twice a day, approaching accuracy by accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

BS GGT, this thread has been exclusively about public sector unions.

---

Can't discuss those while ignoring political agendas and tax money. They're connected and that's the gist of your beef. Let's not forget the nit picking and semantics, defining power or thuggery. You've gone over the bend and lost your marbles, while I hear voices in my head, according to Fuzzy fur balls. Yeah. :bored:

Everything is connected. Let's talk about everything at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Everything is connected. Let's talk about everything at once.

---

A brilliant idea. By making all topics and discussions about everything, things will finally be so vague and amorphous that everyone else will become confused and jumbled, leveling the field.