Harry Reid: We’ll shut down government before we shut down Planned Parenthood funding

[ishii]

ishii

Not the only reason why I didn’t vote for him, and I provided other reasons. His infedelity while his wife was dying merely showed his character.

Yes, but it was one reason. If you were given the choice between an unfaithful pro-life candidate and a faithful pro-abortion rights candidate, which one would you vote for?

I didn’t vote for McCain, because of many issues I have with him, including his lip-service to the pro-life crowd, for political expediency.

I think you’re being unfair. He had been in office as either a congressman or senator for 26years by the time he ran in 2008. Give anyone 26 years of voting and being in the public eye and you will be able to take a quote or vote or two from the record and try to use that as a a way to twist their position around. The fact is, McCain did get early endorsements from key pro-life leaders and eventually the National Right to Life committee, one of the largest and most respected pro-life groups in the country. You apparently disagree with them. John McCain was maybe not the “perfect” pro-life candidate, but one is hard pressed to say with any certainty that he would have not nominated constructionist justices who might have gone on to overturn Roe v Wade. We had a clear choice between a pro-life candidate and a pro-abortion rights candidate and the pro-abortion rights candidate won, with the votes of catholics.

Jim

Ishii

 

[ishii]

You seem to think I’m in favor of abortions and pro-choice.

I’m not, I’m very much pro-life.

Jim

Which candidate did you vote for in 2008?

 

[ishii]

Should “know better” than their bishops???

No. There are so many catholics who should know better, meaning that they shouldn’t need a bishop to confirm to them that its wrong to vote for pro-abortion rights candidates - they should already know that. That said, some bishops need to do a better job of teaching.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

I felt forced to vote for McCain because of what people said here on this board. I had to hold down the vomit as I did so.

I won’t make that mistake next time.

Of course, if I were to believe everything everyone says around here, just by being a unionized public employee, I am probably in mortal sin just by going to work each day.

Did you not say you were a huge Rush Limbaugh fan a couple years ago?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Did you not say you were a huge Rush Limbaugh fan a couple years ago?

Actually, it was more like a “few” years ago. I got my epiphany during the middle of Bush’s first term…or was it the beginning of that iconic representative of everything Republican, ex-Governor of California (again, thank God for the ex-), Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first term in a Republican do-over election after they lost to the least popular Democratic governor in a fair election. I’ve loathed and despised the Republican Party ever since.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’ve loathed and despised the Republican Party ever since.

Most public sector government employees do. We Republicans are the party of stopping the government gravy train.

 

[exoflare]

Rather than a retraction and apology for your extremely offensive statement, you reiterate your ultimate claim. Ignored and reported. bye bye.

lol reported for WHAT?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Most public sector government employees do. We Republicans are the party of stopping the government gravy train.

How insulting. You act as though people don’t WORK for their paychecks.

Actually, your attitude is exactly that which gives me pause…let me ask you DIRECTLY. Simple yes or no will do. Anything else is proof of intentional evasion of the question:

Am I committing a sin by going to work everyday as a unionized public employee?

 

[Suudy]

Actually, your attitude is exactly that which gives me pause…let me ask you DIRECTLY. Simple yes or no will do. Anything else is proof of intentional evasion of the question:

Wonderful questioning technique. Answer yes or no or you are intentionally evading an answer…

Are you still being your wife (or spouse)?

 

[Raskolnikov]

How insulting. You act as though people don’t WORK for their paychecks.

Actually, your attitude is exactly that which gives me pause…let me ask you DIRECTLY. Simple yes or no will do. Anything else is proof of intentional evasion of the question:

Am I committing a sin by going to work everyday as a unionized public employee?

Perhaps I’ve been spending a little too much time here, but I can already think of a couple arguments someone make that it is. Hopefully no one will actually try.

I don’t agree with everything John Kenneth Galbraith says, but he was right about irrational glorification of the private sector (and maximizing “production”) by so many conservatives. Even an overpaid schoolteacher contributes more to society than a typical employee at a company that produces unnecessary consumer products.

 

[iamrefreshed]

How insulting. You act as though people don’t WORK for their paychecks.

Actually, your attitude is exactly that which gives me pause…let me ask you DIRECTLY. Simple yes or no will do. Anything else is proof of intentional evasion of the question:

Am I committing a sin by going to work everyday as a unionized public employee?

Gee, I don’t know, are you?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Even an overpaid schoolteacher contributes more to society than a typical employee at a company that produces unnecessary consumer products.

Remember that when you’re laid out on an operating table.

 

[Suudy]

I don’t agree with everything John Kenneth Galbraith says, but he was right about irrational glorification of the private sector (and maximizing “production”) by so many conservatives. Even an overpaid schoolteacher contributes more to society than a typical employee at a company that produces unnecessary consumer products.

Perhaps in the form of direct contribution, but not necessarily indirectly. I know this also applies to government positions, but I don’t think the argument is about benefit to society–directly or indirectly. It is, rather, about bang for the buck. Who does more with less money?

 

[Raskolnikov]

iamrefreshed:

Remember that when you’re laid out on an operating table.

I’m not sure I’d categorize doctors as providing an unnecessary consumer product. Some do provide unnecessary services (abortionists and cosmetic surgeons maybe), but I was thinking more along the lines of, I don’t know, someone who designs clothes that cost thousands of dollars but are to my eyes not markedly better than what is sold at Kohl’s, or companies that make soda beverages that have no nutritional value.

Suudy:

Perhaps in the form of direct contribution, but not necessarily indirectly. I know this also applies to government positions, but I don’t think the argument is about benefit to society–directly or indirectly. It is, rather, about bang for the buck. Who does more with less money?

True, but often the market will make one good or service as or more valuable than another that is “objectively” more valuable. For example, compare a medical procedure that costs 50,000 to a Corvette. Or a can of pop to a piece of fruit. Society would be better off if investment were directed at improving quality or increading supply (via research an improved technology maybe) of the surgery or the fruit, but not as much is if selling Corvettes and pop are more profitable. So ‘bang for your buck’ depends on whether one takes ‘objective’ value into account rather than just market set prices and consumer utility.

So, a private company may be extremely cost efficient at producing a useful or even detrimental product (cigarettes, for example, or maybe even junk food), but does that mean that it is “more productive” than a schoolteacher who is overpaid, but provides an education that may still yield a net “profit,” because such a service improves the skills and productivity of the students enough to increase their gross product in life by a much greater amount than what it cost the government to provide the service (the teacher’s salary)?

 

[ishii]

How insulting. You act as though people don’t WORK for their paychecks.

Actually, your attitude is exactly that which gives me pause…let me ask you DIRECTLY. Simple yes or no will do. Anything else is proof of intentional evasion of the question:

Am I committing a sin by going to work everyday as a unionized public employee?

And this has what to do with the topic of the thread?

Ishii

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Most public sector government employees do. We Republicans are the party of stopping the government gravy train.

I’m a public sector employee. I consider myself must in line with the republican party. I disagree with them on some issues - but I agree with them on more. My husband is also public sector and republican, as well as all his coworkers.

I wouldn’t say “most” but I would say most of the higher-ups seem to be. The thing is, the conservatives are pretty quiet - usually due to necessity.

I’d love to see a work place sponsored by tax payers where the TAX PAYERS have the final say, not a union. And it would also be awesome to work in a place where incompetent workers could be let go without having to wait for them to hurt, maim, or molest someone. (Boy my hubby and I have stories about that. )

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I’m a public sector employee. I consider myself must in line with the republican party. I disagree with them on some issues - but I agree with them on more. My husband is also public sector and republican, as well as all his coworkers.

I wouldn’t say “most” but I would say most of the higher-ups seem to be. The thing is, the conservatives are pretty quiet - usually due to necessity.

I’d love to see a work place sponsored by tax payers where the TAX PAYERS have the final say, not a union. And it would also be awesome to work in a place where incompetent workers could be let go without having to wait for them to hurt, maim, or molest someone. (Boy my hubby and I have stories about that. )

Come to California where the unions get what the governor decides to give. Gov. Jerry Brown just finished signing agreements with several employee organizations that feature terms exactly the same as those employee organizations who signed agreements under that iconic, that pure representative of all things Republican, ex-Governor of the State of California (thank God for the ex-), Arnold Scharzenegger. Don’t tell me that public employee unions are all powerful.

As to getting rid of problematic employees, that’s part of the supervisor/manager’s job, isn’t it. If they’re not willing to do what it takes to get rid of a problem, then they deserve what they get.

The civil service rules exist for a reason, primarily to prevent the corruption that existed under the spoils system. That’s why you have to have cause to terminate a permanent civil service employee (and personnel boards, those who have the final say in discipline, are usually a mixture of labor and management representatives). It takes some work, but it can be, and has been, done very effectively. Otherwise, it would be as simple as party affiliation whenever the government changes hands. Then again, I can see that being useful to those who have interest in getting a share of that nice taxpayer scratch via unaccountable private service contracts. Nah, can’t be that people have designs on something like that and all those darned public employees and their unions getting in the way.

And unlike the “hired hands” of private contractors, who only care about the profit they can earn this quarter, many of us who work for the government directly have a vested interest in the well being of our agencies over the long term. We believe in the mission of our agencies…which is probably why I am so pro-labor. My job provides support those who protect the lives, safety and health of others. There will always be a need for that and I’m happy to help provide it.

 

[ishii]

that iconic representative of everything Republican, ex-Governor of California (again, thank God for the ex-), Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first term in a Republican do-over election after they lost to the least popular Democratic governor in a fair election. I’ve loathed and despised the Republican Party ever since.

Not that this really deserves a response but for the record, Arnold Schwarzenegger is no more an icon of everything GOP than someone like Senator Jim Webb is the icon of all things Democrat. If you’re interested in serious analysis I would recommend this article on Arnold which correctly describes him as a RINO Republican - a social liberal in the vain of Bloomberg who appeals to the GOP mainly on the basis of a supposed committment to “fiscal conservatism” - a dubious committment at that. If you base your hatred of the entire GOP on the record of one RINO governor, then I think that hatred is misplaced.

reason.com/archives/2009/01/05/schwarzeneggers-failure

Ishii

 

[RobbyS]

Come to California where the unions get what the governor decides to give. Gov. Jerry Brown just finished signing agreements with several employee organizations that feature terms exactly the same as those employee organizations who signed agreements under that iconic, that pure representative of all things Republican, ex-Governor of the State of California (thank God for the ex-), Arnold Scharzenegger. Don’t tell me that public employee unions are all powerful.

As to getting rid of problematic employees, that’s part of the supervisor/manager’s job, isn’t it. If they’re not willing to do what it takes to get rid of a problem, then they deserve what they get.

The civil service rules exist for a reason, primarily to prevent the corruption that existed under the spoils system. That’s why you have to have cause to terminate a permanent civil service employee (and personnel boards, those who have the final say in discipline, are usually a mixture of labor and management representatives). It takes some work, but it can be, and has been, done very effectively. Otherwise, it would be as simple as party affiliation whenever the government changes hands. Then again, I can see that being useful to those who have interest in getting a share of that nice taxpayer scratch via unaccountable private service contracts. Nah, can’t be that people have designs on something like that and all those darned public employees and their unions getting in the way.

Wisconsin already has some of the best civil service protections in the country. The problem seems to be that the people sitting on each side of the table share the same ideological commitment to public education as an end in itself. Hence the amount of money spent per student has been increasing exponentially since the '60s with the result that administrative costs have mushroomed, teacher benefits have increased, and facilities have gotten better and better with no apparent improvement in the result. The increasing diversity in our society has defeated the schools efforts to bring students up to the same level of performance. Furthermore, more and more attempts have been made to indoctrinate students in the reigning ideology of the Educational establishment, which seems to be much more in line with that of the national Democratic Party than with the Republicans. More and more dues money has been used to support the Democrats because they favor this ever increasing flow of funds into the public schools.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Actually, it was more like a “few” years ago. I got my epiphany during the middle of Bush’s first term…or was it the beginning of that iconic representative of everything Republican, ex-Governor of California (again, thank God for the ex-), Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first term in a Republican do-over election after they lost to the least popular Democratic governor in a fair election. I’ve loathed and despised the Republican Party ever since.

So, the middle of Bush/Schwarzenegger’s first term would have been like 6 years ago, not a few.

Fine you can loathe and despise the Republican party all you want.

But, if you consider yourself an informed former Rush fan. Please stop talking about Arnold as if he is the template of the typical Republican. Because it really makes you look…uninformed, to be as charitable and honest as I can.

In other words, you never paid attention if you listened to Rush and consider Arnold the icon of all that is Republican.