March 9, 2011

"Polls are nice, if they are on your side... But in the end, you've got to govern based upon what you think is the right thing."

Scott Walker, who's not backing down.

266 comments:

1 – 200 of 266   Newer›   Newest»
LawGirl said...

. . . if they are on your side . . .???

If I could edit this part out, I'd agree with the statement whole-heartedly. As it is, I have to half-heartedly agree.



wv: sumid. "I bet it got sumid in the Capitol with all those sweaty bodies laying around."

ricpic said...

What counts is having an impressive resume. Lacking that a show of backbone is SHOCKING!

kent said...

Walker offers compromise, fleebaggers walk away

Lying cowards. Fuck'm.

MadisonMan said...

The thing is, the Governor doesn't pass the budget. The Legislature does. He can be creative with his veto pen. But the Legislators -- who will seek re-election a lot sooner than Mr. 250K New Jobs Walker (I'm doubtful) -- are the ones Walker should be wondering about.

Henry said...

@LawGirl -- I'd edit out the "Polls are nice" part as well.

Anyway, good for him.

LawGirl said...

Walker never should have begun negotiating with political terrorists (the Fleebag Fourteen). Terrorists, as a class, cannot be trusted. <_<

Widmerpool said...

This isn't hard. Walker's choices are: (1) give in and be finished politically or (2) hang tough and hope for a rebound. Perfectly rational behavior.

LawGirl said...

Henry - upon further reflection, I agree with you. The sentence should have been, "You've got to govern based upon what you think is the right thing."

We elect representatives to vote their conscience. If not, we'd have a direct democracy. Instead, we have a representative republic.

E.M. Davis said...

Wallets are ballots.

Michael K said...

Walker has been through this before as Milwaukee County executive. I wonder if the unions are as sure as he is ?

blake said...

The public is fickle.

And they're influenced by PR, of course.(Hence the name...)

You gotta do whatcha gotta do.

Henry said...

The public doesn't like conflict. Policy disagreements will always lower poll numbers.

former law student said...

Does anyone know? Recall petitions cannot be filed until Walker's been in office for one year, but when can they start being circulated?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

The governor should not back down.

He was elected and he is duty-bound to make good on his campaign goals/reform.

If he gives up now, he'll make the french look brave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY

retire05 said...

So as the Petulant 14 gave constand interviews [from an undisclosed location in Illinois] we heard time after time that Walker was refusing to negotiate. Oooops, the released emails between the Republican leadership and the Petulant 14 shows differently. Time for the Petulant 14 to wipe that Egg McMuffin off their chins.

Of course, Rick Badger, who is head of the AFSCME, Council 40, is still waging his war against Walker. I wonder if Badger ever bothered to tell his membership that the 10 ten union bigwigs in Council 40 rack up a tony $1,192,977.00 a year in salaries. You can't continue to draw those kids of paychecks if the union member lessens because members are tired of supporting those like Badger.

Perhaps someone can tell me if union membership is so desirable, why is it mandatory and not voluntary? Why must you force people to belong? If you have a right to belong to a union, would it not also apply that you have a right to work a job WITHOUT belonging to a union?

Scott Walker needs to stand firm and represent those workers who do not belong to a union but are, in reality, forced to pay union dues via their taxes.

former law student said...

He was elected and he is duty-bound to make good on his campaign goals/reform.

What were Walker's campaign promises regarding public employee unions?

garage mahal said...

It appears sending an empty Astroturf Cock Bus around the state didn't help his tanking popularity in the state. It's only getting worse.

Enjoy your very brief term, I'm sure it will be filled with awesome memories.

Those 14 Democrats - so close, yet sooooo far away!

MadisonMan said...

He was elected and he is duty-bound to make good on his campaign goals/reform.

And what were they? Getting rid of unions wasn't on the list.

Alex said...

FLS & Garagi appear to have gotten their daily talking points from TPM.

Alex said...

And what were they? Getting rid of unions wasn't on the list.

I heart Koch Industries. Eat it.

former law student said...

Scott Walker needs to stand firm and represent those workers who do not belong to a union but are, in reality, forced to pay union dues via their taxes.

Another statist who wants to dictate how people should spend their income. Can schoolteachers drink alcohol or go bowling, or does that offend you too?

shoutingthomas said...

Go get 'em Gov.

I can't wait to watch garbage eat shit.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Is the liberal argument that public employee unions are necessary because without them, the government will take advantage of the workers just like the evil corporations do?

Hoosier Daddy said...

And what were they? Getting rid of unions wasn't on the list.

I didn't know Walker was getting rid of the unions.

Sofa King said...

And what were they? Getting rid of unions wasn't on the list.

Conveniently, he isn't doing that!

Even you, MadisonMan, I think can not defend the behavior of the Democratic senators. To make further compromises even in excess of what has already been offered would simply be rewarding bad behavior. Isn't this obvious to you?

Sofa King said...

Another statist who wants to dictate how people should spend their income. Can schoolteachers drink alcohol or go bowling, or does that offend you too?

There's nothing voluntary about teachers' union contributions, and I think you know that.

TosaGuy said...

The Gov did run on cutting the size and scope of government in order to eliminate our budget deficit without raising taxes.

His plan to scale back the collective bargaining privilege to save the state money as well as allow cuts to state aid to local governments without loss of services or no layoffs seems like a campaign promise kept.

tooclass said...

"Talking about his first, unsuccessful run for governor, Walker summed up his approach to life as "trust and obey" God." Couldn't think of a more ridiculous notion.

Bob_R said...

The polls on this are suspect anyway. Any poll that asks, "Do you want to take goody X from group Y?" always gets a negative response. Individually polled, there's strong support for every item in the budget, strong resistance to every kind of tax. The only polls that really force people to make hard choices about these issues occur in early November. Those are the only polls that people should take seriously.

former law student said...

There's nothing voluntary about teachers' union contributions

Union representation is part of the deal of becoming a Wisconsin schoolteacher. Cross the Mississippi and become an Iowa schoolteacher if you don't want a union representing you.

traditionalguy said...

Walker is walking issues about to appear reasonable, but the issue is only freeing teachers from mandatory union membership and withholding of dues by payroll deduction.

Emil Blatz said...

Time is definitely on his side. If the Democrats continue to obstruct - the costs will mount quickly (refinancing debt, layoffs, etc., etc., etc.) Fiscal issues take time for the public to absorb. He wins if they drag this out.

blake said...

Gee, FLS, why can't we apply your logic to everywhere?

Want socialized medicine? Move to Canada!

Henry said...

Union representation is part of the deal of becoming a Wisconsin schoolteacher. Cross the Mississippi and become an Iowa schoolteacher if you don't want a union representing you.

Oh jaysus.

Wisconsin: Love it or leave it.

LawGirl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clairvius Narcisse said...

did walker also promise to bypass the legislative process so he could defund medicaid and badgercare?

garage mahal said...

If you read the poll numbers backward, they show strong support for Walker.

Leland said...

Cross the Mississippi and become an Iowa schoolteacher if you don't want a union representing you.

And you dare call others statist?

LawGirl said...

The only polls that really force people to make hard choices about these issues occur in early November. Those are the only polls that people should take seriously.

Amen, Bob. All others are subject to bias depending upon the wording used:

"Do you want to STRIP public employees of their collective bargaining RIGHTS?"

might get a very different response from

"Should the government limit collective bargaining privileges for public employees to only salary-related issues, to prevent raising taxes to pay for benefits negotiated at the local level, spanning years if not decades, in their reach?"

LawGirl said...

So . . . according to FLS, if you want to be a public employee in Wisconsin . . . be a good little boy/girl and just 1) sit down, 2) shut up, 3) join the union, and 4) pay your dues?

How about we just institute 1 and 2??

Leland said...

How about we just institute 1 and 2??

I think he really only wants 2

edutcher said...

Funny how some people expect leadership from a politician, but, when they see some real leadership, hate it.

former law student said...

There's nothing voluntary about teachers' union contributions

Union representation is part of the deal of becoming a Wisconsin schoolteacher. Cross the Mississippi and become an Iowa schoolteacher if you don't want a union representing you.


In other words, teaching in WI is only for the the slaves.

You don't have the right to teach in WI, it must be conferred on you by the massas. If you would be free, you must fly like Eliza.

garage mahal said...

Think of the teachers!

shoutingthomas said...

Think of the teachers!

Yes think of the teachers:

o retiring at 80% pay after 20 years
o returning to an administrative job and double dipping
o guaranteed job security
o paying virtually nothing for their benefits and pensions
o working only 9 months out of the year

Yes, garbage, I'm thinking of the teachers!

tim maguire said...

According to Rasmussen , the polls vary depending on how much context is given. If the question is just about union rights, then the public sides with the unions. But the more information regarding the budget is included in the question, the more Walker wins.

garage mahal said...

Shit with a gig like that why aren't you a teacher thomas?

Leland said...

Shit with a gig like that why aren't you a teacher thomas?

Because he'd have to be in an union or move to Iowa. Try to keep up, Garage.

LawGirl said...

I can't speak for Thomas, but I know why I'm not one . . . I couldn't stand giving any more $$ to the teachers' union than I am already forced to, through my taxes.

TosaGuy said...

My dad is a retired teacher. We were not rich, but we were never poor. He now owns two homes, one of which is in a state without income taxes.

The concept that WI public school teachers are poor is a myth.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Shit with a gig like that why aren't you a teacher thomas?

When I was getting out of college in 1990, I had actually considered sticking around another year or so to get enough secondary ed credits but then I knew more secondary ed majors working at McDonalds than in public schools because the field was oversaturated with candidates.

The idea of lifetime benefits, summers off...then reality hit. Sigh.

garage mahal said...

Because he'd have to be in an union or move to Iowa

So what! Small price to pay for a life of luxury I would think. I know all the get rich schemes always involve being a teacher or a snowplow driver.

Henry said...

Union representation is part of the deal of becoming a Wisconsin schoolteacher.

Maybe that's one reason people voted for Walker. I would have been one.

Here in Rhode Island I seriously considered voting against Lincoln Chafee -- a politician I normally respect -- when he accepted the endorsement of the teacher's union.

Unfortunately his opponents were hacks.

James said...

Yes think of the teachers:

o retiring at 80% pay after 20 years
o returning to an administrative job and double dipping
o guaranteed job security
o paying virtually nothing for their benefits and pensions
o working only 9 months out of the year

Yes, garbage, I'm thinking of the teachers!


You forgot the Teacher Emeritus Program. Several school districts pay a substantial portion of teachers' salaries after retirement in exchange for little or nothing.

In Green Bay, for example, a retired teacher is paid 1/3 of their salary for working 10 days a year.

In Madison, retired teachers are paid 19 percent of their highest salary for three years without having to do anything.

Sweet deal if you can get it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The concept that WI public school teachers are poor is a myth.

The concept that teachers are poor is a myth. They typically earn the average national salary. Actually significantly more when taking into account the holidays, summers off, Christmas break, fall break spring break.

PaulV said...

FLS, do you mean that teachers only pay those exorbitant u7nions dues is because the state gives them no choice. Perhaps if you had a good professor like Althouse you could look what what the recall law requires rather than relying on sympathy of strangers.

WV: boutpt Its is all bout PR

Alex said...

garage does not believe in the right to work. Forcing a person to join a union is tyranny, not freedom. I'd like liberals to admit once and for all that the word FREEDOM does NOT exist for them. CONTROL.

madAsHell said...

Three reasons for becoming a teacher:
1. June
2. July
3. August

Meade said...

"There ain't no easy way out"

detroitexile said...

Question about rhetoric, rather than a rhetorical question.

At what point do wages paid to public employees become their money as payment for services rendered as opposed to still being my tax dollars.

retire05 said...

former law student, if union teachers are such a value, why are 51% of African-American students in Wisconsin dropping out? Why is there 14% of Wisconsin students going to private/parachial schools because their parents want them to have a decent education? And why, do you think that belonging to a union provides any better salary to a teacher than a non-union teacher earns?


Outside of having to pay the union big wigs their tony salaries via union dues, and having to be held to the lowest common denominator because unions treat all teachers equally because of membership, union teachers gain nothing. All they are doing is supporting those like Rick Badger who is knocking down almost $132K a year and the Democratic Party.

Not such a good deal with they could use their union dues to spend on their own kids, and not union fat cats.

Meade said...

I voted for Walker and I must say I'm a little disappointed in him. I wish Walker would take a truly strong stand and do in Wisconsin what Daniels did in Indiana - by executive order, eliminate public employee unions altogether.

wordsmith2 said...

"Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), introduced the National Right to Work Act to “reduce workplace discrimination by protecting the free choice of individuals to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities,” according to a statement."

If this federal action goes through, then one of the Wisconsin Democrats' few sound fiscal arguments against restricting collective bargaining rights for public-sector employees would seem to collapse. Currently, the state stands to lose millions of dollars in federal transportation money if Walker's budget repair bill is passed.

wordsmith2 said...

Given that the Wisconsin 14 haven't returned to the capitol, apparently they don't consider the following concessions on the governor's part (documented in e-mails between Walker's office and two of the Democratic state senators) to be "negotiating":

• Public employee union bargaining over wages would no longer be limited to the rate of inflation.

• Unions would be allowed to bargain over certain economic issues, including mandatory overtime, performance bonuses, hazardous duty pay and classroom size.

• Unions could bargain over workplace safety, but that would be limited to workers’ physical health and safety.

• Unions would have to vote every three years to remain active.

Sofa King said...

At what point do wages paid to public employees become their money as payment for services rendered as opposed to still being my tax dollars.

I would say as soon as they take an ownership interest? How is this relevant?

former law student said...

Gee, FLS, why can't we apply your logic to everywhere?

Want socialized medicine? Move to Canada!


More like "Don't want socialized medicine? Move to the States!"

Unions protect teachers; teachers elect their union representatives. Teachers can toss out the union if it's not working for them.

former law student said...

working only 9 months out of the year

The typical summer break for teachers is ten weeks, not thirteen. During their annual layoff, teachers I have known have tutored incoming college athletes, sold men's clothing, rehabbed houses, and fished commercially.

retire05 said...

I suspect former law student is getting his talking points from this site:

http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/emergency-labor-meeting-in-cleveland

Nothing like locking arms with the Socialists, is there?

Leland said...

Unions protect teachers; teachers elect their union representatives. Teachers can toss out the union if it's not working for them.

Teachers can only elect union representation if they belong to the union, but they pay dues regardless.

But more relevant is that WI citizens can vote for their representatives. And WI citizens can demand that their public employees work for the government rather than the unions. In fact, WI citizens have every reason to expect that their state civil servants can work just fine without collective bargaining, just like the federal civil servants do.

Leland said...

During their annual layoff, teachers I have known have found ways to double dip.

FIFY

E.M. Davis said...

Unions protect teachers

From what?

E.M. Davis said...

Unions protect teachers

Conversely, who protects me?

former law student said...

apparently they don't consider the following concessions on the governor's part (documented in e-mails between Walker's office and two of the Democratic state senators

Hmm.. wordsmith glossed over this part: {Walker's "concessions"] would not bargaining over hours, overtime, sick leave or family leave, work schedules or vacation.

I voted for Walker and I must say I'm a little disappointed in him. I wish Walker would take a truly strong stand and do in Wisconsin what Daniels did in Indiana - by executive order, eliminate public employee unions altogether.

I wonder if Meade has ever considered that the benefits his wonderful wife enjoys were fought for by public employee unions, and extended by the state to nonunionized employees out of fairness.

Jeremy said...

Unions gave us:

1. Weekends off
2. Child Labor Laws
3. Minimum Wage Laws
4. Sick Days
5. Paid Vacations
6. Collective Bargaining
7. Workers having the ability to earn a living wage

How many here had parents who belonged to unions? Parents who supported your family, and of course yourself?

And why do so many connect the fact that the teachers here are "paid by the taxpayer," while in reality every union in the world is, in some way, "paid" by taxpayers who buy the goods and services of the companies they work for.

*I'd also love to know how many belong to a union right now...yet continue to join in with the bitching and whining here.

Jeremy said...

FLS - "I wonder if Meade has ever considered that the benefits his wonderful wife enjoys were fought for by public employee unions, and extended by the state to nonunionized employees out of fairness."

Are you kidding?

Needy is just along for the ride.

And I myself wonder if Needy himself ever belonged to a union...or if his parents did.

shoutingthomas said...

The typical summer break for teachers is ten weeks, not thirteen. During their annual layoff, teachers I have known have tutored incoming college athletes, sold men's clothing, rehabbed houses, and fished commercially.

Jesus Christ! The inhumanity!

However, you've forgotten to include week long holiday and semester breaks, not to mention every holiday every known to exist.

Nine months is closer to reality.

Listen, my daughter is a public school teacher. I know.

And, yes I'm glad she's getting all those benefits. If somebody's going to get them, I'm glad it's my daughter.

Jeremy said...

E.M. Davis said..."Conversely, who protects me?"

You're afraid of teachers?

*Ever take a vacation or a sick day or not have to work a weekend?

How do you think that all came about?

Jeremy said...

ONLY shoutingthomas would whine about teacher's unions while his own daughter belongs to one.

Why not demand she quit the union or refuse or give back her benefits?

And have you told her how fucking lazy she is or how little she really works?

What a dick.

Meade said...

You boys can wonder all you want but the truth remains: public sector unions are fat, greedy, and corrupt. Whatever good they may have done, they are now analogous to swollen ticks on their hosts. Eliminate them and we will all be free. Here you go:

Change. Hope. Yes We Can.

Maguro said...

The unions can keep what's theirs, but only if someone else gives up what they're getting. There is not enough money for everyone to keep getting what they have now.

In Illinois we have a Dem governor and legislature so the public employee unions won't lose anything. But, income taxes go up from 3% to 5%, $1 per pack tax on cigarettes and fewer services for the elderly and other people who depend on government programs. It's simple math, not enough money to go around anymore. Someone has to suffer. Too bad, but that's the way it is.

So if the people of Wisconsin don't want the unionized public employees to suffer, that's fine. Just understand that someone else will be picking up the tab for their benefits.

B said...

fls said:

"Unions protect teachers; teachers elect their union representatives. Teachers can toss out the union if it's not working for them."

The majority of the voters elects their state representatives. The representatives can toss out the union if it's not working for the majority of the voters.

This is a consequence of elections.

E.M. Davis said...

You're afraid of teachers?

No one has answered the question of what or whom the teachers need protection from.

Okay, since you cannot understand my simple logic ...

Who protects my interests?

Meade said...

Consider this, former law student: The more my wife and I, respectively, have individually bargained in our careers, the more benefits we've acquired. Group projects when we were students, committees, and unions have held us back far more than they have helped us.

Jeremy said...

Needy - "Whatever good they may have done..."

Yeah, if only we could take back all of the good they've done, we'd all be so much better off.

Instead of negotiating when the pendulum swings too far in one direction or another (as it did in years past with auto workers and others), don't negotiate a fair and equitible solution, just get rid of them.

Teabagger drivel...as usual.

chickelit said...

How many here had parents who belonged to unions? Parents who supported your family, and of course yourself?

I did. My dad belonged to the ITU from 1960 to 1977. His union died. Ever watch a union die? I watched it happen.

Like rhhardin said (paraphrasing) it's a certainty that unbridled unions will eventually bankrupt companies.

Walker's not trying to break them, just rein in their excesses. You, garage, and FSH are just bluster.

Meade said...

" just get rid of them."

Exactly. Just like politicians who are no longer effective and have in fact become counter-productive.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And why do so many connect the fact that the teachers here are "paid by the taxpayer," while in reality every union in the world is, in some way, "paid" by taxpayers who buy the goods and services of the companies they work for.

I'll try and explain. As a taxpayer, I have a choice in which private companies I purchase goods and services from. Public employees are paid by taxes which are forcibly deducted from my paycheck by the government.

Again, why do public employees need union protection from the government unless the belief is that the government would take advantage of them.

shoutingthomas said...

Jeremy,

You're a fucking asshole!

Have I told you lately what a fucking asshole you are?

It's quite possible to be glad that one's loved one is getting in on the largess of public service unions, while still being aware that the taxpayers cannot continue to support that largess.

I forgot. Have I told you lately that you are a complete fucking asshole?

If not, let me repeat myself...

garage mahal said...

So if the people of Wisconsin don't want the unionized public employees to suffer, that's fine. Just understand that someone else will be picking up the tab for their benefits.?

Tax rich people more. They are never included in the groups that must sacrifice. Why not? It's actually quite easy.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - I understand your ability to "choose" where you buy products, but could you run any of these companies by me...that are not in any way providing work to union workers to produce, deliver, sell, or service those products?

Take your time.

E.M. Davis said...

Tax rich people more.

Whoops? Where'd all the rich people go? Oh, they moved to Texas.

Also, who is rich?

Are you? Am I?

Think about it.

Alex said...

Tax rich people more. They are never included in the groups that must sacrifice. Why not? It's actually quite easy.

That's always your easy answer to everything in life - soak the rich.

Jeremy said...

chickenshit - "Walker's not trying to break them, just rein in their excesses."

Bullshit...he's trying to bust the unions.

TosaGuy said...

"Cross the Mississippi and become an Iowa schoolteacher if you don't want a union representing you."

From Field of Dreams

Ballplayer: "Is this heaven?
Kevin Costner: No, this is Iowa."

LawGirl said...

At what point do wages paid to public employees become their money as payment for services rendered as opposed to still being my tax dollars.

At the point where union membership and dues payment is voluntary on the part of the worker. Otherwise, it's simply a pass-through tax.

Leland said...

The more my wife and I, respectively, have individually bargained in our careers, the more benefits we've acquired. Group projects when we were students, committees, and unions have held us back far more than they have helped us.

My wife and I have never belonged to an union. Interesting that I have more paid vacation days, make a nice sum of money, and most importantly; I have to pay no one to represent the freeloading coworker that needed to be fired.

Alex said...

I'm with Meade on this one. Walker should get some backbone and just outlaw the fucking public unions. Issue an executive order. Screw 'em.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Tax rich people more.

I agree. Anyone making six figures and drives BMWs should be taxed at least 40%.

E.M. Davis said...

Hoosier - I understand your ability to "choose" where you buy products, but could you run any of these companies by me...that are not in any way providing work to union workers to produce, deliver, sell, or service those products?

Okay. Company A and Company B both sell cars. Company A and Company B both have unions. Company A's union rules and benefits and wages exceed Company B's. So, Company A has to charge more for its cars than Company B.

Consumers hate paying more for the same thing, so they "choose" to buy Company B's cars. Company A's profits sink, so they declare bankruptcy or go out of business.

When it comes to public schooling, for the most part, there's just Company A.

LawGirl said...

Meade sez: I voted for Walker and I must say I'm a little disappointed in him. I wish Walker would take a truly strong stand and do in Wisconsin what Daniels did in Indiana - by executive order, eliminate public employee unions altogether.

I agree. If he's going to take THIS MUCH flack, at least get something truly valuable for the effort.

Jeremy said...

Needy - "The more my wife and I, respectively, have individually bargained in our careers, the more benefits we've acquired."

Well, that's just wonderful that you and The Queen have had such success negotiating "individually."

But are you sayng that the average American can just up and do the same?

That without unions and collective bargaining the average American worker would be where they are today?

That's just silly teabagger drivel and you know it.

shoutingthomas said...

Tax rich people more. They are never included in the groups that must sacrifice. Why not? It's actually quite easy.

OK, now garbage really exposes his ignorance.

It's easy to tax rich people.

17 years ago, I worked in IT for a very wealthy corporate law firm.

Their primary business: tax avoidance for the very rich.

The rich can afford tax lawyers who structure their business and private earnings precisely for the purpose of tax avoidance. And, of course, those same lawyers are very talented in structuring businesses to pass along the costs to consumers in commodities prices.

Yes, it's really easy to tax the rich, garbage.

You are so ignorant.

What are you going to do? Make it illegal for the rich to hire tax lawyers?

MayBee said...

Again, why do public employees need union protection from the government unless the belief is that the government would take advantage of them.

Yeah, I can never quite understand the overlap in people who support both public employee unions AND government run single payer health care.

E.M. Davis said...

I agree. Anyone making six figures and drives BMWs should be taxed at least 40%.

Hoosier, don't you want to be FAIR?

85%.

WV: botation. Heavy botation.

Jeremy said...

E.M Davis - "When it comes to public schooling, for the most part, there's just Company A."

That's ridiculous.

The same collective bargaining negotiations don't apply to ALL teachers at ALL schools.

That's the whole point.

*Oh, and where the Company B in Congress?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier - I understand your ability to "choose" where you buy products, but could you run any of these companies by me...that are not in any way providing work to union workers to produce, deliver, sell, or service those products?

I suggest you understand the difference between private employee unions and public employee unions. Then we can discuss.

Alex said...

st:

What are you going to do? Make it illegal for the rich to hire tax lawyers?

You think garbage doesn't DREAM about that? To him the rich are subhumans anyways.

chickelit said...

Bullshit...he's trying to bust the unions.

Yeah fuck you too "Jeremy"

What Kaus said the other day is closer to the truth. And that's why potus is so upset. Can't we speak plainly here?

Alex said...

anyone who worships unions is mentally ill.

E.M. Davis said...

But are you sayng that the average American can just up and do the same?

I do it, bi-annually at my employee reviews.

I now make double than what I did at the same company in 7 years. I've doubled my vacation time, too.

E.M. Davis said...

The same collective bargaining negotiations don't apply to ALL teachers at ALL schools.

Did I imply that anywhere in my basic example?

You asked about consumer choice, not me.

Jeremy said...

Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined...and all the local teabaggers here can do is whine about the teacher's unions.

garage mahal said...

Whoops? Where'd all the rich people go? Oh, they moved to Texas.

Nah, there are more millionaires in WI than teachers. By quite a few:

Number of teachers in Wisconsin: 59,552
Number of millionaires in Wisconsin: 89,977

Tax them just a little more, and *poof*, deficit "crisis" gone.

E.M. Davis said...

*Oh, and where the Company B in Congress?

In order to discuss this with you, it would help if you made a modicum of sense.

Alex said...

Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined...and all the local teabaggers here can do is whine about the teacher's unions.

Class warfare at it's finest(lowest). always try to get everyone at each others' throats in the streets.

Jeremy said...

E.m. - "I do it, bi-annually at my employee reviews."

That's also wonderful, but why would you assume the average American worker could do the same?

Are you implying that even without collective bargaining or unions, most Americans can just negotiate their way to higher wages and benefits?

Even you know that's a crock.

LawGirl said...

I have yet to hear a sound argument in favor of the continued need for unions in 2011 that isn't stuck in 1911.

Not to mention that PUBLIC employee unions are a completely different animal from private ones, for the reasons others have articulated so well here.

Meade's fat tick analogy is my favorite, but I fear getting arrested for even suggesting we squeeze all the blood out of the little sucker.

E.M. Davis said...

Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined

Can you prove that they accumulated this wealth by destroying the wealth of others?

If not, GTFO.

Jeremy said...

E.M. - "When it comes to public schooling, for the most part, there's just Company A."

ALL public schooling is the same?

E.M. Davis said...

Tax them just a little more, and *poof*, deficit "crisis" gone.

Tax them 100%. Then you'd have a budget surplus!

E.M. Davis said...

ALL public schooling is the same?

If its PUBLIC schooling, then yes.

Jeremy said...

E.M. Davis said..."Can you prove that they accumulated this wealth by destroying the wealth of others?"

So now the teachers are "destroying the wealth of others?"

Swirl those balls around a few more times and get back to me teabagger.

LawGirl said...

Jeremy - It's very hard to take your arguments seriously when they are so filthy with fallacies. I cannot even count the number of fallacies you have employed in just this one thread - although red herring and hasty generalization appear to be your faves.

E.M. Davis said...

That's also wonderful, but why would you assume the average American worker could do the same?

Who is this averageAmerican worker you speak of?

Jeremy said...

E.M. If you actually think that ALL public schooling is the same you need to crawl out of that trailer and take a closer look.

Or the reason so many people go to all kinds of extremes to get their kids into schools out of inner cities or in better neighborhoods because they're ALL the same?

Duh.

E.M. Davis said...

So now the teachers are "destroying the wealth of others?"

Did I say that?

You should charge admission to your leaps of logic.

MayBee said...

Two of the richest people in America- Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, have given quite a lot of money to educational causes.
USC just got its biggest single donation ever.
The Annenbergs donated huge sums to try to improve education, although sadly the people in Chicago mismanaged it.

It isn't as if "the rich" don't support education.

The problem is, it seems we've reached the point where most people simply don't want to pay more in taxes. Given that, educators need to find a way to responsibly manage the money they are going to get.
Unions may add to the teacher's benefits, but they also cost a lot of money.
The Federal Department of Education may have some small benefit, but it also sucks a lot of money into administration.
I believe teachers would find themselves as well off financially if they were able to dump the parasites feeding off their funding.

LawGirl said...

That's also wonderful, but why would you assume the average American worker could do the same?

E.M. Davis said...
Who is this averageAmerican worker you speak of?

. . . and WHY must s/he "do the same" in order for it to be valid???

Jeremy said...

E.M. - "Who is this averageAmerican worker you speak of?"

Well...

*According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average weekly salary of the American Worker as of January 2010 is $629.04, or $32,708.10 per year.

I realize you're a rather dense fellow, but are you saying that the average American worker would be better off today...had theree never been unions and collective bargaining?

Is that the point of your comments?

Jeremy said...

LawGirl - Are you also saying the average American worker can negotiate their wages and benefits better than being part of a collective bargaining effort?

C'mon...you know that's ridiculous.

E.M. Davis said...

E.M. If you actually think that ALL public schooling is the same you need to crawl out of that trailer and take a closer look.

Or the reason so many people go to all kinds of extremes to get their kids into schools out of inner cities or in better neighborhoods because they're ALL the same?

Duh.


I used to live in a three-bedroom house. Now, I live in a four-bedroom house. Thanks to the merit of my hard work.

If I were in a union, I might have to depend on the abilities of my co-workers to acquire the means to build a nicer, larger house. But thanks to my acumen, devotion, and value, I can handle it myself.

I'm not arguing that all public schooling is the same. I am arguing that it is FUNDED the same.

My kid goes to a good PUBLIC school? Why? Because I pay more in property taxes than in other school districts.

I am willing to pay teachers more if they SHOW MERIT and RESULTS. Hell, a teacher could become a millionaire you so despise if the market has determined he or she is worth such. I care little how much teachers make.

But I do care when tax dollars are being spent at in excess of what a market would realistically support.

That is the problem with collective bargaining that I am arguing against. Imagine, people paid what they are worth! Like me, in my profession.

Try to follow along.

shoutingthomas said...

Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined...and all the local teabaggers here can do is whine about the teacher's unions.

Yes, but by the standards of the 19th century, virtually every American lives like royalty:

o house
o car
o enough food to eat to obesity
o television
o air conditioning
o cell and land line phones
o computers

So, what the fuck are you talking about?

Alex said...

Jeremy has the fundamental belief that we are all just units in the collective being, rather then individuals. Thus we NEED the union.

Alex said...

st - you make an excellent point. It's not about the concentration o uber-wealth among the top 5% that matters, but how good the standard of living is for the bottom 95%. Thus far, it's more then good enough to prevent a Bolshevik Revolution. Jeremy should read up on Russia to understand what conditions are required for such a revolution.

B said...

Jeremey said:

"Is that the point of your comments?"

And the pont of yours? Without exception they seem to be superficial and sophomoric. Most also reveal you to be a rather distasteful individual given the puerile fascination with kinky sexual practices.

Henry said...

Jeremy wrote: Unions gave us ...

Uh no. Economic progress did. Look up Henry Ford and the Eight Hour day.

Okay, I grant you that unions gaves us collective bargaining. That is a truism.

Now you could argue that the politicians who gave us all that candy were supported by unions, but, even that is too reductive.

So what did the union give us?

Work rules
Barriers to entry
Jimmy Hoffa
Detroit

Thanks guys.

LawGirl said...

LawGirl - Are you also saying the average American worker can negotiate their wages and benefits better than being part of a collective bargaining effort? Perhaps your hypothetical AAW should give it a shot . . . and, if he can't . . . perhaps he shouldn't be getting subsidized by those who can, which is one of the many problems with unions.

Further, this whole AAW stuff misses the entire point of the current debate. You seem to be keeping yourself purposely ignorant of the tremendous differnece between private employee unions and PUBLIC ones, particularly where participation is mandatory.

Whatever happened to choice? Should not the individual workers get the choice of whether to be assimilated into the Borg?

jerryofva said...

Another misuse of statistics by Garage.

Most of the Wisconsin's millionaires are farmers. They own 400 acres of land, a bunch of buildings and capital equipment. When they get done paying the bank, paying taxes and buying supplies their net income is lower then teachers get in pay and benefits.

And Jeremy: There is an alternative to public schools. Their teachers don't belong to unions and the kids, many of whom are children of public school teachers, get a better education. In Wisconsin 14% of the students are in private schools.

E.M. Davis said...

Are you also saying the average American worker can negotiate their wages and benefits better than being part of a collective bargaining effort?

Yes.

However, the problem with most occupations at the bottom of the scale of pay (below the 'average') is that the people whom hold those positions are largely fungible ... which means it doesn't matter WHO does the work. Those people lack bargaining power because they do not employ enough skill to demand more in wages and benefits. They can be easily replaced by able-bodied others.

These people are not teachers, to preempt your next comeback.

Jeremy said...

E.M. - I posted this comment: ""Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined...and all the local teabaggers here can do is whine about the teacher's unions."

And you followed up with this:

E.M. Davis - "Can you prove that they accumulated this wealth by destroying the wealth of others?"

Well, no, but what does that have to do with the teachers...unless of course you're implying that the teachers are somehow "destroying the wealth of others."

But then, probably because of a memory lapse, you ask me this:

"Did I say that? You should charge admission to your leaps of logic."

If you weren't referring to the teachers, who were you referring to??

Jeremy said...

E.M. - So the average Joe can just negotiate their way to better wages, benefits, etc...by just pulling up their bootstraps, walking into the boss's office and making their case, huh?

You're full of shit and you know it, too.

*And if that is the case, why don't the police and firefighters demand their unions be disbanded?

E.M. Davis said...

"Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."

You argued this point as if this is concentrated wealth was a national crisis.

You diverged from the narrative first.

E.M. Davis said...

"average Joe"

Who the fuck is Average Joe? I don't know any.

LawGirl said...

If you weren't referring to the teachers, who were you referring to??
Just a wild stab-in-the-dark guess here, but context suggestshe's referring to The 400, in the negative (in other words, they did not get wealthy by destroying the wealth of others). At least that's how I read it.

E.M. Davis said...

the average Joe can just negotiate their way to better wages, benefits, etc...by just pulling up their bootstraps, walking into the boss's office and making their case, huh?

Hey, you're catching on!

Or Average Joe could become MORE VALUABLE to the company.

Jeremy said...

jerryofva - So if they're farmers...they're really not millionaires?

And do any of these non-millionaires collect any form of government subsidy...via...you know...the taxpayers of America?

Hint: $3.31 billion over 15 years.

Duh.

MayBee said...

Well, the Suffragettes got women the vote and we've managed to hang onto it without having to continue to pay dues to the local Suffragette chapter.

former law student said...

The more my wife and I, respectively, have individually bargained in our careers, the more benefits we've acquired. Group projects when we were students, committees, and unions have held us back far more than they have helped us.

Wow, if the professor managed to negotiate a better deal than the standard UW benefits package, I'd really be impressed:

http://www.uwsa.edu/hr/benefits
/uben.pdf

This is for Faculty/Staff. "Unclassified" employees receive almost the same set of benefits: they don't get to take sabbaticals, and unionized employees pay less for their health insurance.

I am a bit surprised that rugged individualist Althouse chose to work at a state school located in the historic center of the Progressive movement, in the only state where Socialists were elected to public office, and where public employees have been bargaining collectively since 1959. Wouldn't every day there be like listening to nails scrape on a blackboard? Why not University of Alabama? Or Tulane?

E.M. Davis said...

And do any of these non-millionaires collect any form of government subsidy...via...you know...the taxpayers of America?

For the record, I am against farm subsidies.

BANG! Consistency on the hand outs!

Jeremy said...

E.M. Right. A factory of let's say, 2,500 workers, where each one can negotiate their own wages and benefits...beter than a collective effort by all concerned?

What are you, twelve years old?

Trooper York said...

"Why not University of Alabama? Or Tulane?"


They don't have good cheese.

former law student said...

Or Average Joe could become MORE VALUABLE to the company.

The professor could teach six courses a year rather than four or whatever it is.

jerryofva said...

look moron, they are millionaires in the sense that they own business with a lot of land and capital. Their net income, you know the amount that they have to live on, is less then a Wisconsin teacher.

E.M. Davis said...

The professor could teach six courses a year rather than four or whatever it is.

Yeah, that's it.

Jesus.



WV: colayst - get the cola going!

Maguro said...

@garage - Do you think you're the first person to think of the genius idea "Soak the rich" as a solution to all our problems?

Have you considered why Illinois has decided not to solve its fiscal problems by soaking the rich? We're governed by liberal Democrats, you know, people after your own heart.

Here's a hint: Capital is mobile.

Think about it.

Jeremy said...

MayBee "Well, the Suffragettes got women the vote and we've managed to hang onto it without having to continue to pay dues to the local Suffragette chapter."

Sure, and how's that women as CEO's of major corporations working out for you?

Hint: While women make up over half of America's labor force, as of 2009, only 12 Fortune 500 companies and 25 Fortune 1000 companies have women CEOs.

LawGirl said...

E.M. Right. A factory of let's say, 2,500 workers, where each one can negotiate their own wages and benefits...beter than a collective effort by all concerned?

What are you, twelve years old?


Pot . . . kettle . . .

Anywho, see, your example demonstrates the problem with collective thinking: it brings everyone to the same level - some down; some up. Why shouldn't everyone be paid the value of his or her individual contribution? Thus, those who contribute more value get paid more (they aren't brought down). What a novel concept! Sounds almost like the real world.

former law student said...

Most of the Wisconsin's millionaires are farmers. They own 400 acres of land

Well, sure. They got the land from their daddies, or grandma.

E.M. Davis said...

A factory of let's say, 2,500 workers, where each one can negotiate their own wages and benefits...beter than a collective effort by all concerned?

My company employs 425 people in our office and over 4000 worldwide.

Why not?

E.M. Davis said...

Hint: While women make up over half of America's labor force, as of 2009, only 12 Fortune 500 companies and 25 Fortune 1000 companies have women CEOs.

But CEOs are evil, right? Why do you hate women so much?

; )

shoutingthomas said...

I am a bit surprised that rugged individualist Althouse chose to work at a state school located in the historic center of the Progressive movement, in the only state where Socialists were elected to public office, and where public employees have been bargaining collectively since 1959. Wouldn't every day there be like listening to nails scrape on a blackboard? Why not University of Alabama? Or Tulane?

This segregation by political viewpoint is an absolute mania of the left.

Diversity is good in all respects but in thought.

When it comes to differences of political viewpoint, segregation to different areas of the country is obviously the answer.

Althouse should have made sure that she was entering the correct ideological zone. In fact, you should have to pass an ideological test to live and work in Madison.

shoutingthomas said...

Hint: While women make up over half of America's labor force, as of 2009, only 12 Fortune 500 companies and 25 Fortune 1000 companies have women CEOs.

Hint: The vast majority of women don't want to be CEOs, despite progressive attempts at social engineering.

E.M. Davis said...

Hint: The vast majority of women don't want to be CEOs, despite progressive attempts at social engineering.

It's amazing how many people ignore self-selection bias in any statistical study of human nature.

MayBee said...

Sure, and how's that women as CEO's of major corporations working out for you?

What percentage of CEOs are union members?

former law student said...

hen it comes to differences of political viewpoint, segregation to different areas of the country is obviously the answer.

Why did she move to San Sebastian instead of Galt's Gulch?

kimsch said...

Unions may have gotten 40 hour work weeks, safety, no child labor, overtime pay, etc., etc., but then the government legislatively mandated those things for all workers, not just union workers.

The unions would have us pay tribute to them forever for that.

Sorry. You are now obsolete.

wv: endshers

shoutingthomas said...

Why did she move to San Sebastian instead of Galt's Gulch?

This is where all you folks screaming about "right-wingers" and "Althouse Lemmings" get really confused.

I live in Woodstock, NY, one of the most liberal communities in America.

What in the hell good would it do me to apply my critical thinking to criticizing Republicans in Iowa? Where I live, progressives are in power. I apply my critical thinking to the corruption and mistakes of progressives, since they are the ones running the show where I live.

Likewise, you might expect the same from Althouse?

What should she be doing? Applying her critical thinking to farmers in Iowa? Or commenting about what's going on right under her nose?

E.M. Davis said...

A factory of let's say, 2,500 workers, where each one can negotiate their own wages and benefits...beter than a collective effort by all concerned?

How many non-union suckers work for IBM on a global basis?

The scale is irrelevant.

jerryofva said...

fls:

And your point is?

Perhaps we should confiscate their land, collectivize the farms and liquidate these kulaks.

Leland said...

Well, the Suffragettes got women the vote and we've managed to hang onto it without having to continue to pay dues to the local Suffragette chapter.

Bingo!

Jeremy said...

jerryofva "look moron, they are millionaires in the sense that they own business with a lot of land and capital. Their net income, you know the amount that they have to live on, is less then a Wisconsin teacher."

So the average millionaire farmer makes less than $45,000 a year??

Get your head out...

Henry said...

@shoutingthomas -- From Pawtucket, Rhode Island, I salute you.

Of course, what I find both charming and mysterious is how far afield my liberal friends have to go to get offended. They're always mad at something going on in Texas or Idaho or Wisconsin, even as their most-liberal-highest-taxed home state sinks deeper into debt and poverty.

But I love living here.

garage mahal said...

Most of the Wisconsin's millionaires are farmers.

You just made this up, you have no idea, do you....? That's over 1000 farms per county.

If you're in Madison this Saturday there will be a TractorCade of hundreds of farmers rallying from John Nolen all the way up to the Capitol.

Jeremy said...

E.M. Anybody who takes the stand that American workers (or any workers for that matter) would be better off without collective bargaining is either a moron or just arguing for arguing's sake.

Which part of this if bad?

Unions got us:

1. Weekends off
2. Child Labor Laws
3. Minimum Wage Laws
4. Sick Days
5. Paid Vacations
6. Collective Bargaining
7. Workers having the ability to earn a living wage

WHich one would you like to get rid of?

former law student said...

jerry -- Farming didn't make them wealthy; farmers are cash poor. The price of farm land is out of their control; the only way they could benefit would be to sell their way of life.

E.M. Davis said...

So the average millionaire farmer makes less than $45,000 a year??

I would venture to guess that perhaps most make more than $45k in bring-home pay, but they are certainly not the wealthiest among us.

However, I do not pretend to know the cost structure of owning or operating a Wisconsin farm.

E.M. Davis said...

Unions got us:

Got?

Are you living in the past?

E.M. Davis said...

WHich one would you like to get rid of?

Actually, I'd kill the minimum wage.

But that's just the cruel, vicious, baby-eating despot in me.

E.M. Davis said...

E.M. Anybody who takes the stand that American workers (or any workers for that matter) would be better off without collective bargaining is either a moron or just arguing for arguing's sake.

I have in no way argued against the existence of PRIVATE unions, where profits are at stake.

Try again.

E.M. Davis said...

Unions got us:

Also, you might want to improve your grammar to be more valuable to the comments section.

And no, I'm not going to make a "you must have went to public school" joke here.

Jeremy said...

Millionaires Versus Teachers in Wisconsin:

If the State of Wisconsin increased taxes on resident millionaires to take back just ONE TWENTIETH of the extra money they've been keeping in their pockets thanks to the Bush tax cuts, that would totally wipe out the need to slash teacher salaries under Walker's scheme.

Jeremy said...

E.M. - You sound like a reall teabagger asshole.

Stop by The Queen and Needy's house tonight...maybe they'll give you a cookie.

E.M. Davis said...

If the State of Wisconsin increased taxes on resident millionaires to take back just ONE TWENTIETH of the extra money they've been keeping in their pockets thanks to the Bush tax cuts, that would totally wipe out the need to slash teacher salaries under Walker's scheme.

And how might that rollback impact the Wisconsin economy?

Or did you not think of that?

E.M. Davis said...

E.M. - You sound like a reall teabagger asshole.

Have I called you any names?

kimsch said...

Do you think millionaires have a million bucks or more just sitting in the bank?

"Millionairedom" is more than just dollars or even just liquid assets - those assets quickly turned into cash.

A millionaire could certainly net $45K a year to live on even though assets are worth more.

wv:sonsolen

E.M. Davis said...

slash teacher salaries

That's a bit disingenuous.

Comrade X said...

I like garage's idea of heavily taxing the wealth of Wisconsin's multitudinous millionaires.

What's the fair market value of a public employee pension? If a retiree draws over 40k a year, congrats, you're a millionaire.

E.M. Davis said...

E.M. - You sound like a reall teabagger asshole.

This is where you and I really diverge.

I enjoy debating people with whom I do not share an ideology — and yet I still like to call a lot of them my friends and treat them with respect.

Maguro said...

Millionaires Versus Teachers in Wisconsin: If the State of Wisconsin increased taxes on resident millionaires to take back just ONE TWENTIETH of the extra money they've been keeping in their pockets thanks to the Bush tax cuts, that would totally wipe out the need to slash teacher salaries under Walker's scheme.

You do realize that "millionaire" doesn't mean that each of these people earn $1M per year, right?

former law student said...

Unions got us:

Got?

Are you living in the past?


As unions disappear, the bad old days for workers come back.

In 1911, before the ILGWU, 146 women sewing clothes in a burning New York factory either died from the fire or leaped to their death because their management had locked them in.

Couldn't happen in modern times, right? No need for unions in current America.

Except that in 1991, in a "right-to-work" state, 25 people processing chicken in a burning North Carolina factory, died from the fire, because their management had locked them in. Although the plant had had three previous fires, the building had neither sprinklers nor fire alarms.

But why have a union? Surely individuals can negotiate individually for better working conditions. Surely today's management is concerned for the welfare of its workers.

Jeremy said...

E.M. Davis said..."Also, you might want to improve your grammar to be more valuable to the comments section."

What are you referring to?

"unions got us...?"

Are you saying that if I say; unions got us a very good vacation package...that that is grammatically incorrect?

Jeremy said...

E.M. Davis "I enjoy debating people with whom I do not share an ideology — and yet I still like to call a lot of them my friends and treat them with respect." ("Friends?" You know these people personally...or just agree with their politics?)

You're not "debating" anybody here...except me...and I suppose garage...or anybody else who doesn't buy into your silly teabagger bullshit.
(Get rid of the minimum wage?)

You and 95% of the other regualrs here do little other than suck up to each other on literally every topic of discussion. (Show me any of the disagreement or debate between you and any of the other regulars.)

E.M. Davis said...

Except that in 1991, in a "right-to-work" state, 25 people processing chicken in a burning North Carolina factory, died from the fire, because their management had locked them in. Although the plant had had three previous fires, the building had neither sprinklers nor fire alarms.

This discussion has never been about PRIVATE unions.

Unless, the nasty local government is locking teachers in burning schools.

jerryofva said...

jeremy the moron:
Teachers make more than $45k. They get virtually free health insurance and retirement benefits. Total compensation is closer to $100k for 9 months of work. Farmers must pay their own health insurance and make provisions for their own retirement. So yes they make less then the average teacher.


fls: I think we agree that farmers with a net worth of $1mil aren't rolling in dough

E.M. Davis said...

Show me any of the disagreement or debate between you and any of the other regulars.

Perhaps because many of us share an ideology?

We obviously do not.

Why do I have to suck up to anyone here?

And I've agreed with Garage (I believe) on the budget blight known as farm subsidies for wealthier and corporate farmers.

Oh, and I agree with Palladian on gay marriage. And Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Such an echo chamber!

Jeremy said...

Maguro - "You do realize that "millionaire" doesn't mean that each of these people earn $1M per year, right?"

Are they millionaires or not?

E.M. Davis said...

Get rid of the minimum wage?

Yes. The government has no business setting wages or prices.

Richard Nixon, beloved by so many liberals, imposed price controls.

They didn't work.

Maguro said...

Wisconsin DMV clerks MUST be unionized, otherwise it will be the Triangle Shirtwaist Co all over again!!!!!11!!

E.M. Davis said...

Are they millionaires or not?

Look up net worth and get back to us with the answer.

Jeremy said...

E.M. - WOW...you agree with garage on farm subsidies for wealthier and corporate farmers, and Palladian on gay marriage?

Such diversity.

Run the rest of the "debate" parties you engage.

*Oh, and by the way, Palladian is one of the regular teabagging fools who spend half their life here, sucking on The Queen and Needy.

E.M. Davis said...

*Oh, and by the way, Palladian is one of the regular teabagging fools who spend half their life here, sucking on The Queen and Needy.

Tell me what the proper distribution of ideologies should be on the Althouse comments section, please.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 266   Newer› Newest»