You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 06:22:39 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Scott Walker, Union Buster  (Read 26787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #350 on: March 13, 2011, 11:12:01 PM »
Dismiss the content of the letter because of the headlines meant to draw attention to it, then deflect it by changing the subject. Typical downplay and distraction, though I did expect it sooner.

While I can't think of any boycotts off the top of my head in which Republicans were involved that A) were successful and B) weren't senate in origin or a joint operation in which the parties actually cooperated, I DO know that boycotts can be counter-productive to their cause. Case in point, Whole Foods Market boycott over CEO John Mackey's opposition to Obama's health care policies mobilized effective 'buycotts'.

Boycotting someones business for their political beliefs is completely acceptable. Why should I do business with someone that supports a major political position that I am opposed to? This is why a lot of businesses don't donate to political organizations.

I don't recall questioning the acceptability of starting a boycott. I will however question the thought put into this decision. Private businesses pay taxes. Less taxes means less funding for the state. Are they trying to induce wage cuts?


Offline Caeli

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #351 on: March 13, 2011, 11:19:29 PM »
I don't recall questioning the acceptability of starting a boycott. I will however question the thought put into this decision. Private businesses pay taxes. Less taxes means less funding for the state. Are they trying to induce wage cuts?

Doesn't necessarily mean they're boycotting that service/product completely, only that they're refusing to patronize a business that supports a political stance that the boycotters do not. Just because I'm boycotting Safeway doesn't mean I stop buying groceries; it just means I go to Albertson's instead.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #352 on: March 13, 2011, 11:51:18 PM »
Doesn't necessarily mean they're boycotting that service/product completely, only that they're refusing to patronize a business that supports a political stance that the boycotters do not. Just because I'm boycotting Safeway doesn't mean I stop buying groceries; it just means I go to Albertson's instead.

Valid point. I guess I was assuming a worst case scenario in which all businesses across a particular product/service supported the opposed stance that prompted the boycott.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #353 on: March 14, 2011, 12:10:14 AM »
Valid point. I guess I was assuming a worst case scenario in which all businesses across a particular product/service supported the opposed stance that prompted the boycott.

What would you have the opposition do? Burn down the business, vandalize it? Honestly I would be impressed with the restraint BOTH sides have exercised in this issue (aside from a few stupid events like the 7.5 million clean up cost for tape on walls)

Happy and pleased. No one has been hurt, things are FAIRLY civil. It's a nice change.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #354 on: March 14, 2011, 12:45:43 AM »
Dismiss the content of the letter because of the headlines meant to draw attention to it, then deflect it by changing the subject. Typical downplay and distraction, though I did expect it sooner.

Lying about your opponent's position and concerns is not appreciated.
1) You will cite where another member has denied the possibility of a boycott, or concede that we are in fact familiar with the content of the letter, and do not dispute it.
2) You acknowledge that some of our concern is with the implications of Mafia-style racketeering in the language used, which is an expansion of the topic at hand.
3) You will acknowledge that the some of us have argued that political boycotts are perfectly acceptable, and that this means that yes, the letter itself has been addressed.

You can choose whether to ignore the arguments presented as summarized above, if you wish. However, if you agree that political boycotts are acceptable, then you should address why the tone should not be discussed instead.

Participation in the P&R forums requires that members refrain from dishonest statements like the above-quoted sentence.

Quote
While I can't think of any boycotts off the top of my head in which Republicans were involved that A) were successful and B) weren't senate in origin or a joint operation in which the parties actually cooperated, I DO know that boycotts can be counter-productive to their cause. Case in point, Whole Foods Market boycott over CEO John Mackey's opposition to Obama's health care policies mobilized effective 'buycotts'.

The Whole Foods boycott had a lot more behind it than just health care. Whole Foods has been attacked by liberals for a lot of practices.

Quote
I don't recall questioning the acceptability of starting a boycott. I will however question the thought put into this decision. Private businesses pay taxes. Less taxes means less funding for the state. Are they trying to induce wage cuts?

Their money simply goes elsewhere - supporting businesses that agree with them. Their needs don't magically vanish just because they're choosing to avoid certain stores. During the BP oil crisis, for example, the BP station here was always empty while the Super America and Holiday stations down the street were packed. Wages still get paid, taxes still get collected, goods still get distributed.

And there wasn't even an active boycott of BP.

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #355 on: March 14, 2011, 12:46:31 AM »
The protesters have been more civil to each other then the politicians

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #356 on: March 14, 2011, 01:00:34 AM »
Wasn't part of the Whole Foods boycott dealing with 'gasp!' the company's constant anti-union practices? Not to mention their 'Obamacare' alternative had like a 1300 medical deductible  (and 700 dollar prescription deductible)

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #357 on: March 14, 2011, 01:47:34 AM »
1) You will cite where another member has denied the possibility of a boycott, or concede that we are in fact familiar with the content of the letter, and do not dispute it.

Where have I accused anyone of denying that a boycott will happen? Where have I accused anyone of not reading the letter?

2) You acknowledge that some of our concern is with the implications of Mafia-style racketeering in the language used, which is an expansion of the topic at hand.

I do believe I focused on the actual letter itself rather than the one line of fluff provided.

3) You will acknowledge that the some of us have argued that political boycotts are perfectly acceptable, and that this means that yes, the letter itself has been addressed.

I'm confused as to why the act of boycotting is being directly associated with the act of sending a threatening letter.

You can choose whether to ignore the arguments presented as summarized above, if you wish. However, if you agree that political boycotts are acceptable, then you should address why the tone should not be discussed instead.

When has my issue NOT been with the tone of the letter? Oh, right. After I was laid into over the legitimacy of boycotting as a means of protest, which I never disputed.

The Whole Foods boycott had a lot more behind it than just health care. Whole Foods has been attacked by liberals for a lot of practices.

Relevance to the point I was trying to make?


Their money simply goes elsewhere - supporting businesses that agree with them. Their needs don't magically vanish just because they're choosing to avoid certain stores. During the BP oil crisis, for example, the BP station here was always empty while the Super America and Holiday stations down the street were packed. Wages still get paid, taxes still get collected, goods still get distributed.

And there wasn't even an active boycott of BP.

A prime example of the condition I mentioned where "B) ... a joint operation in which the parties actually cooperated," though I do admit the combined effort was rather informal to constitute the phrase 'joint operation.'

Wasn't part of the Whole Foods boycott dealing with 'gasp!' the company's constant anti-union practices? Not to mention their 'Obamacare' alternative had like a 1300 medical deductible  (and 700 dollar prescription deductible)

To be fair, they were John Mackey's alternatives. Anti-union companies have existed long before Whole Foods, most contracts of such businesses actually including the condition of "attempting to engage in or organize a union" as grounds for termination. Would like to see a lot more boycotts over this, for continuity's sake.



Offline Vekseid

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #358 on: March 14, 2011, 03:55:22 AM »
My numbered statements were not engagements in debate, Lyell.

Dismiss the content of the letter

No one has dismissed the content of the letter. You were dishonest on this point.

You can either acknowledge that you have been dishonest about our actions, apologize for doing so, and agree to try to refrain from lying about your opponent's statements in the future, or lose your posting privileges here.

Quote
because of the headlines meant to draw attention to it, then deflect it by changing the subject.

Others have continued to discuss the subject of the letter, while others have focused on something they feel is more concerning. This being a forum, it is possible to address multiple formats at once and, frankly, it is generally considered rude to gang up on people over a single point, and I am not about to ask the entire thread ask you what is wrong with political boycotts as you already seem to be fine with them.

It is dishonest on your part to claim that the intent was to deflect the subject from the letter. If you want to re-open the discussion of why you think something is wrong with the letter itself, you may continue that with those who have responded to the content of the letter. But it looks like you agreed with the concept of the rebuttal.

Again, you can apologize for your false claim, and agree to try to refrain from such behavior in the future, or have your posting privileges here revoked.

Quote
Typical downplay and distraction, though I did expect it sooner.

And this is nothing but inflammatory, content-less rhetoric.

Again, you can apologize and agree to try and refrain from it in the future, or have your posting privileges here revoked.

And don't try to claim we have not done the same with liberals. The only one so far banned for this sort of behavior was, in fact, a liberal. The conservative we banned had their access revoked for likening gays to pedophiles, which is not just crass and inflammatory but also a personal assault on many members here.

I myself have posted public apologies when I was in the wrong. I know no one is perfect, that things get heated, but this sort of behavior cannot be allowed to continue if we are to have a meaningful discourse. You have presented many salient points here without resorting to such tactics, and I hope you can continue to do so in the future without resorting to lines like this so frequently. There are a lot of people with conservative opinions here who do just fine without resorting to such tactics. You can join them and keep participating in the dialogue, or not.

Online ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #359 on: March 14, 2011, 11:56:06 AM »
To attempt to get the thread back on track:

Walker gave a speech just outside Green Bay last night, and protesters were there, too.  Crowds peaked at 3,000-4,000 people.

Quote
Its America. They have every right to be heard, said Walker, whose three-vehicle caravan ran the gauntlet of protesters on Bond Street who object to his overhaul of public employee and union negotiation practices.

But Im not going to allow those voices to drown out the millions of taxpayers who understand the need to balance the budget and protect middle class jobs.

That comment reminded me of something else I saw, a comment posted on a blog about the protests.  It was something along the lines of, "Well, even if 100,000 people protest, that's still just a tiny fraction of the five million people in the state!"

Except most people, even when really annoyed about something, don't actually go out and protest.  Say that 50% of the people who are against the bill are out waving signs -- a huge overestimate, I'm sure.  Granted, those who support the bill are less likely to be counter-protesting, since they're winning, but if over four million people think this is a good idea, you would think that they'd be able to get more than 2,000 of them together at a time, if only for the sake of the cameras.

I realize the Republicans are often not good at keeping up appearances, so to speak, but you would think they'd put in more of an effort in this case.  Walker is still basically in hiding these days, which looks very bad.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #360 on: March 14, 2011, 12:16:02 PM »
To attempt to get the thread back on track:

Walker gave a speech just outside Green Bay last night, and protesters were there, too.  Crowds peaked at 3,000-4,000 people.

That comment reminded me of something else I saw, a comment posted on a blog about the protests.  It was something along the lines of, "Well, even if 100,000 people protest, that's still just a tiny fraction of the five million people in the state!"

Except most people, even when really annoyed about something, don't actually go out and protest.  Say that 50% of the people who are against the bill are out waving signs -- a huge overestimate, I'm sure.  Granted, those who support the bill are less likely to be counter-protesting, since they're winning, but if over four million people think this is a good idea, you would think that they'd be able to get more than 2,000 of them together at a time, if only for the sake of the cameras.

I realize the Republicans are often not good at keeping up appearances, so to speak, but you would think they'd put in more of an effort in this case.  Walker is still basically in hiding these days, which looks very bad.

I always find it amazing that when the opposition protests, it's a 'minority' of the people. It always is like that, even when the Tea Party stuff first started a few years ago there were several democrat officals downplayed it as 'a small group'. They forget to note that only 2% or so of the folks who are discontent with the policy are the ones that will show up for a protest.

Soooo, 2% (100,000)  no.. let's assume 0.5% is represented that is a HUGE chuck of your voters. A LOT more names.

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #361 on: March 14, 2011, 12:24:40 PM »
I seem to recall reading somewhere that a letter of complaint sent would actually represent the views of 20 people. How many more would each protester on the street represent (because actually going out and protesting is going to take a lot more effort still)?

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #362 on: March 14, 2011, 01:09:17 PM »
I always find it amazing that when the opposition protests, it's a 'minority' of the people. It always is like that, even when the Tea Party stuff first started a few years ago there were several democrat officals downplayed it as 'a small group'. They forget to note that only 2% or so of the folks who are discontent with the policy are the ones that will show up for a protest.

Soooo, 2% (100,000)  no.. let's assume 0.5% is represented that is a HUGE chuck of your voters. A LOT more names.

I used to live in the state and they did always have strong Republican votes but generally were moderates leaning to the right not wack jobs. But the people voted and when hell hits like this Republicans and Democrats tend to vote party over change, I suspect in a few years he will get re-elected.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #363 on: March 14, 2011, 01:11:01 PM »
You know what, I do apologize.

I apologize for misrepresenting what I was trying to convey.

I apologize for the confusion my miscommunication has caused. (content and tone not being interchangable)

I'm sorry for not trying hard enough to clarify my posts.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #364 on: March 14, 2011, 02:40:11 PM »
I used to live in the state and they did always have strong Republican votes but generally were moderates leaning to the right not wack jobs. But the people voted and when hell hits like this Republicans and Democrats tend to vote party over change, I suspect in a few years he will get re-elected.

It depends on how effective the institutional memory is. I doubt he'd have as easy a time the next time around. Too many folks feel lied to, and the unions know he doesn't value them at all now. And then there is the perception of him 'selling out' to outside interests like the Koch's companies.

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #365 on: March 14, 2011, 04:43:45 PM »

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #366 on: March 14, 2011, 04:52:06 PM »
Will this make the vote invalid if one of the Senators no longer lives in his district?

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/14/wife-tells-wisconsin-protestors-that-senator-has-run-off-with-mistress/?cp=1

Depends if it's still his Home of RESIDENCE. I don't know if he changed that when he moved in with his girl toy. I don't think this will win him any points with his voters though.

Online ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #367 on: March 14, 2011, 05:15:50 PM »
And not only that.  This is only at the rumor stage so far, but it looks like the mistress might also be a lobbyist for the Koch brothers' organization, Americans for Prosperity.  Or more precisely, a former lobbyist, since rumor also has it that the group fired her as soon as this happened.  O.o

I'm sure Hopper has figured out a way around that regulation, anyway.  He just needs to find an apartment in the Fond du Lac area and have his mail sent there, probably.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #368 on: March 14, 2011, 05:26:58 PM »
And not only that.  This is only at the rumor stage so far, but it looks like the mistress might also be a lobbyist for the Koch brothers' organization, Americans for Prosperity.  Or more precisely, a former lobbyist, since rumor also has it that the group fired her as soon as this happened.  O.o

I'm sure Hopper has figured out a way around that regulation, anyway.  He just needs to find an apartment in the Fond du Lac area and have his mail sent there, probably.

I figure, till further proof can be given, that the rumor is just that. I do expect that he has a residence (for legal qualifcation reasons) somewhere in his district. It would only be prudent to keep one.

Online ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #369 on: March 14, 2011, 05:45:33 PM »
The Democrats are saying they're way ahead of schedule on collecting signatures for the recall.

Quote
Dems have now collected over 56,000 signatures supporting the recall drives, according to party spokesman Graeme Zielinski, after another surge in organizing activity over the weekend. Thats up from rougly 14,000 after last weekend. This means Dems are well ahead of schedule: In each targeted district, Dems need to amass the required signatures 25 percent of the number who voted in the last gubernatorial election by a deadline of 60 days after first filing for recalls, which happened nearly two weeks ago.

In other words, Dems are reporting they are nearly halfway to the finish line, with roughly three-fourths of the alloted time remaining.

Supposedly the second 50% is harder to collect, which makes sense, and they'll want to get as many more signatures beyond what's required as possible, since the Republicans will challenge as many as they can; but on the other hand, there's still plenty of time.

Offline Kuroneko

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #370 on: March 14, 2011, 07:22:21 PM »
Actually, the last report over the weekend was that over 150,000 signatures have been collected. 

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #371 on: March 14, 2011, 08:15:30 PM »
If 56,000 was almost halfway, then my math says they've more than passed the requirement?  Do we have a raw figure somewhere for what they need?

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #372 on: March 14, 2011, 08:23:54 PM »
If 56,000 was almost halfway, then my math says they've more than passed the requirement?  Do we have a raw figure somewhere for what they need?

True but in something like this you're going to want to hedge your bets. Not to mention the more names the more impact it has

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #373 on: March 14, 2011, 08:28:36 PM »
Not disputing that - I was more making sure that there was call for a guarded cheer.  I saw in our local paper that pro-union sentiments are strong in Medina (not the town I live in - they actually have a couple historical markers), so I'm keeping an eye out for any April 4th solidarity events.

Online ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #374 on: March 14, 2011, 08:32:27 PM »
I haven't seen 150,000 signatures listed anywhere, actually.  Everything I've seen says 56,000, though that's still pretty impressive.

The law is that you need to collect signatures equal to 25% of the number of votes collected in the relevant election.   Ballotopedia has these numbers.  All together, the votes needed for each add up to 141,743.  If that 150,000 number is true, that is enough, presuming they're spread out as needed among the different districts; but as I said, I haven't found a source for that number.  And as Callie mentioned, the intention is for them to collect as many signatures as possible, since the Republicans have the right to challenge signatures.

Also, a neat video from the protests this weekend:

Wisconsin Protests:Tony Schultz, Speaks up for farmers, March 12, 2011