America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by Brewha. 152 replies replies.
4 Pages1234>
Here Are 5 God-Given Rights That Democrats Want To Take Away From You
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jackconrad Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 1:29 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461

By Brian Carey on August 6, 2013 2 d

When it comes to the issue of taking rights away from people, the Democrats are far more likely to do that than the Republicans. Here are several examples that make the case that it’s the Democrats who are the statists.



1. Democrats want to take away your gun rights

Surely you remember the post-Newtown hysteria, during which Democrats came out of their shells as gun-grabbers. They wanted to deny millions of law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms as a reactionary measure in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy. Fortunately, sanity prevailed. The gun control effort failed in the Senate (to their credit, a few Democrats actually voted in favor of freedom during that episode) and, as a result of the hysteria, gun purchases soared.



2. Democrats want to take away your freedom of commerce

The fact that Democrats want to take away your freedom of commerce can be proven with one word: ObamaCare. ObamaCare, as you may know, mandates that people purchase health insurance. What that means is this: because you were born an American citizen, the Democrats are forcing you to buy a service. We can safely say that the Democrats are forcing you to do this because no Republicans voted for ObamaCare.



3. Democrats even want to give people permission to take your life

Democrats have been fighting awfully hard for abortion rights lately. There are true heroes in various state legislatures that have been working hard to protect human life. They have been met with opposition – from Democrats. Democrats think that a woman should be able to legally terminate her pregnancy without restrictions. This is tantamount to infanticide in many cases. Even the current Democratic President voted to allow doctors to kill babies that survive a botched abortion.



4. Democrats want to take away your religious freedom

The fact that Democrats want to take away your freedom of religion can be proven with one word: ObamaCare. ObamaCare not only has an individual mandate, it also has an employer mandate. That employer mandate requires that employers provide health insurance to their employees. This health insurance must cover various forms of birth control, a mandate that some Catholic employers find absolutely unacceptable. Fortunately, the Catholics enjoyed a recent victory in this fight. However, that doesn’t change the fact that Democrats view the laws of the state above the laws of God, and that’s a good reason why nobody should vote Democrat.



5. Democrats want to take away your freedom of employment

Recent, Governor Rick Snyder in Michigan signed a “right-to-work” bill into law. The law prevents companies from forcing people into unions as a condition of employment. Who opposed such a common-sense piece of legislation? Democrats, of course. They don’t want you to have the freedom to choose whether or not you’ll join a union. They want you to be required to join a union. That doesn’t sound like freedom, does it?
DrafterX Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 1:35 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
Those Bassards..!! Mad
sd72 Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 1:38 PM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
You dumbazz. Right to work has nothing to do with forcing anyone to join anything. It's a republican law, to break unions. There is no debate over it. The law simply says you can't make someone pay dues for being a member, and can't deny them benefits if they don't.
No business survives if it gives a product or device for free. Even republican endorsed ones.
dpnewell Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 1:42 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
^I think you need to re-read #5, a little slower this time.
jackconrad Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 1:43 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Who is the Dum Azz now !
sd72 Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 1:49 PM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
You. Stick to softcore porn and small town politics. The law does not prevent you from being forced into a union, it prevents you from having to pay .20 An hour for health benefits and a pension to be administered for you. Read the law, not your buddy's blog.
dstieger Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 1:51 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
jackconrad wrote:
Here Are 5 God-Given Rights That Democrats Want To Take Away From You


What holy book are YOU reading, Jack?
bloody spaniard Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:04 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
I've hated BOTH parties since soon after dubya's election. But even before that, they collaborated to pass anti-small business legislation that siphoned business (including no-competes) to Government sanctioned monopolies. Thus, the "$200 hammer" now costs $300 and is one Chinese made model.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul may be the only hope we have, otherwise Clinton II awaits and more jobs will be outsourced while we're indundated by low skill illegals..
jackconrad Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
sd72 wrote:
You. Stick to softcore porn and small town politics. The law does not prevent you from being forced into a union, it prevents you from having to pay .20 An hour for health benefits and a pension to be administered for you. Read the law, not your buddy's blog.


Stuff it up yourzzz



Is this now a bromance??
sd72 Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:12 PM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
Yes. Yes it is. Are we on the list yet?
teedubbya Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:14 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Adam's Apple Low Brow Porn OUTRAGE!
ZRX1200 Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:14 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
Steve has very feminine hair Jack.
jackconrad Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:15 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
As long as he gets me on the list i don't care if he's bald...
teedubbya Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:16 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
ZRX1200 wrote:
Steve has very feminine hair Jack.


Is steve one of jacks porno obsessions?
sd72 Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:18 PM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
You're on the list jack.
teedubbya Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:19 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
sd72 wrote:
You're on the list jack.


My guess is jack is on a lot of lists given the freakish porn sites he visits while spewing complete political nonsense
sd72 Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 2:21 PM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
Well, he made another one. Hope He's not at the library looking that stuff up
bloody spaniard Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 3:00 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Who doesn't love your special brand of unique zaniness, Jack?
That's why you weren't on anybody's list. Don't be hurt. You're on EVERYONE'S secret list. (cough cough)
teedubbya Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 3:02 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
bloody spaniard wrote:
Who doesn't love your special brand of unique zaniness, Jack?
That's why you weren't on anybody's list. Don't be hurt. You're on EVERYONE'S secret list. (cough cough)


Like "most likely to choke on transvestite porn star cox"?
jackconrad Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 3:03 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Thank you Bloody now about that endorsement for Taylor Swifts shampoo you made on Face book....
bloody spaniard Offline
#21 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 3:06 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
check please, before spunk flies


LOL! I'll Taylor Swift you... You know I only use Howie Mandel hair products.
tailgater Offline
#22 Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2013, 11:01 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
sd72 wrote:
You dumbazz. Right to work has nothing to do with forcing anyone to join anything. It's a republican law, to break unions. There is no debate over it. The law simply says you can't make someone pay dues for being a member, and can't deny them benefits if they don't.
No business survives if it gives a product or device for free. Even republican endorsed ones.


Is this a serious post?
dpnewell Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 5:38 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
tailgater wrote:
Is this a serious post?



He read it in his Union News Letter, and we all know those things are about truth, honesty and stuff.
sd72 Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 5:42 AM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
It's more of a magazine really.
Abrignac Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 7:54 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,358
Not sure of other states, but in LA right to work means you can't be compelled to join a union. Can't find anything about being entitled to bennies if you don't contribute. But, if someone wants to read LRS Title 23 in it's entirety and prove me wrong then I'll reconsider.
tailgater Offline
#26 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:16 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I'd like to read the magazine to see how they word things.

"right to work" may be a republican bill.
And it might be an attempt to break the unions.

Which in my book is reason to vote for it. Unions have become too powerful and they do stupid things. Making people in certain occupations join is one of these stupid things.
sd72 Offline
#27 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:28 AM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
http://www.nrtw.org/en/special-legal-notice-michigan-private-sector-workers

Under 'detailed explication of your rights' end of first question. Click here, will take you to the actual law.

I copied a pro-RTW website, should make it easier to understand for the 'anti's' among you.
tailgater Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:39 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
sd72 wrote:
http://www.nrtw.org/en/special-legal-notice-michigan-private-sector-workers

Under 'detailed explication of your rights' end of first question. Click here, will take you to the actual law.

I copied a pro-RTW website, should make it easier to understand for the 'anti's' among you.


OK.
Where does it say that an employee will get union benefits without paying union dues.
Because I didn't see that part.
HockeyDad Offline
#29 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:41 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
sd72 wrote:
You dumbazz. Right to work has nothing to do with forcing anyone to join anything. It's a republican law, to break unions. There is no debate over it. The law simply says you can't make someone pay dues for being a member, and can't deny them benefits if they don't.
No business survives if it gives a product or device for free. Even republican endorsed ones.



You might want to go back and edit this to make it consistent with what you just posted.
HockeyDad Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:41 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
tailgater wrote:
OK.
Where does it say that an employee will get union benefits without paying union dues.
Because I didn't see that part.



I'm suspecting a union tricked him into believing that.
sd72 Offline
#31 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:49 AM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
(A) BECOME OR REMAIN A MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR
OTHERWISE AFFILIATE WITH OR FINANCIALLY SUPPORT A LABOR
ORGANIZATION.
(B) REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN EMPLOYMENT OR REFRAIN FROM
JOINING A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR OTHERWISE AFFILIATING WITH OR
FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING A LABOR ORGANIZATION.
(C) PAY TO ANY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION OR THIRD PARTY AN
AMOUNT THAT IS IN LIEU OF, EQUIVALENT TO, OR ANY PORTION OF DUES,
FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OR EXPENSES REQUIRED OF MEMBERS

I cannot be forced to join or leave a union. I do not have to financially support it either, if I stay. I cannot be denied the benefits afforded the paying members. What would you like edited?

Read B.
Abrignac Offline
#32 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:52 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,358
sd72 wrote:
(A) BECOME OR REMAIN A MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR
OTHERWISE AFFILIATE WITH OR FINANCIALLY SUPPORT A LABOR
ORGANIZATION.
(B) REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN EMPLOYMENT OR REFRAIN FROM
JOINING A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR OTHERWISE AFFILIATING WITH OR
FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING A LABOR ORGANIZATION.
(C) PAY TO ANY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION OR THIRD PARTY AN
AMOUNT THAT IS IN LIEU OF, EQUIVALENT TO, OR ANY PORTION OF DUES,
FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OR EXPENSES REQUIRED OF MEMBERS

I cannot be forced to join or leave a union. I do not have to financially support it either, if I stay. I cannot be denied the benefits afforded the paying members. What would you like edited?

Read B.



I'm guessing you mean that they would get employer sponsored benefits negotiated by the union?? But, not direct benefits provided by the union to their membership?
tailgater Offline
#33 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:53 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
sd72 wrote:
(A) BECOME OR REMAIN A MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR
OTHERWISE AFFILIATE WITH OR FINANCIALLY SUPPORT A LABOR
ORGANIZATION.
(B) REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN EMPLOYMENT OR REFRAIN FROM
JOINING A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR OTHERWISE AFFILIATING WITH OR
FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING A LABOR ORGANIZATION.
(C) PAY TO ANY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION OR THIRD PARTY AN
AMOUNT THAT IS IN LIEU OF, EQUIVALENT TO, OR ANY PORTION OF DUES,
FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OR EXPENSES REQUIRED OF MEMBERS

I cannot be forced to join or leave a union. I do not have to financially support it either, if I stay. I cannot be denied the benefits afforded the paying members. What would you like edited?

Read B.



Please explain where you got the highlighted portion above.
It's not in A, B or even C.
HockeyDad Offline
#34 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:57 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
Abrignac wrote:
I'm guessing you mean that they would get employer sponsored benefits negotiated by the union?? But, not direct benefits provided by the union to their membership?



That is what he should be meaning but it isn't! He thinks non-union employees will get free benefits from the union.
sd72 Offline
#35 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 9:59 AM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
Did you read all 8 pages of the law? I can't be discriminated against for not paying dues. Not giving me benefits, and giving someone who pays said benefits is discrimination.
Health & welfare, and pension are part of base pay package, and can't be taken away.
It also helps to know Davis-Bacon, and ERISA laws.

Dues are not part of contract pay package.
tailgater Offline
#36 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:00 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Abrignac wrote:
I'm guessing you mean that they would get employer sponsored benefits negotiated by the union?? But, not direct benefits provided by the union to their membership?


Today's unions take too much credit for what an employer offers as benefits.

Company A is union, Company B is not.
They both offer 2 weeks paid vacation after 12 months employment. But company A's unions claims it's a union benefit.

And if the healthcare program is sponsored by the union, then the non-union employee would NOT benefit from the program anyway.

Unions are misrepresenting the implications of this law.

Not many laws are this simple.
This one is: You don't have to join the union regardless of where you work.
HockeyDad Offline
#37 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:03 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
sd72 wrote:
I can't be discriminated against for not paying dues. Not giving me benefits, and giving someone who pays said benefits is discrimination.



WHO IS GIVING YOU THE BENEFITS? The employer.
tailgater Offline
#38 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:05 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
sd72 wrote:
Did you read all 8 pages of the law? I can't be discriminated against for not paying dues. Not giving me benefits, and giving someone who pays said benefits is discrimination.
Health & welfare, and pension are part of base pay package, and can't be taken away.
It also helps to know Davis-Bacon, and ERISA laws.

Dues are not part of contract pay package.


You're incorrect about your definition of "discrimination".

I can't be discriminated against for buying a coke at my local 7-11.
But I would have to PAY for that coke.
DrafterX Offline
#39 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:07 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
tailgater wrote:
You're incorrect about your definition of "discrimination".

I can't be discriminated against for buying a coke at my local 7-11.
But I would have to PAY for that coke.




try buying Arizona watermellon iced tea.... Mellow
Buckwheat Offline
#40 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:07 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqW_BZu5Xk
Abrignac Offline
#41 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:10 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,358
In all honesty, this is a crappy topic. It should go without saying that things evolve. History should remind us of the company towns, company script, horrific working conditions, etc... Because of all that the modern labor movement was born of which my grandfather played a significant part on the local level. Back then, it was about giving workers a fair shake.

Fast forward to more recent times. When Louisiana's "Right to Work" law was passed it was a time in which workers who were not members of unions attempted to report for work at non-union job sites only to encounter groups of thugs armed with clubs, baseball bats, etc.. lined shoulder to shoulder daring workers to move forward. In addition, the local unions were pushing to unionize many construction projects and require non-union members to join or loose their job. Talk about giving people a bad taste..

Then as we move forward, it seems many workers are tiring of watching their dues spent on salaries for bloated union staffs full of okie dokies and as contributions to political parties whose agendas are completely opposite of their own.
HockeyDad Offline
#42 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:17 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
Unions just simply evolved to the point where their sole agenda is to kill the Golden Goose....slowly.
bloody spaniard Offline
#43 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:23 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Abrignac wrote:
In all honesty, this is a crappy topic. It should go without saying that things evolve. History should remind us of the company towns, company script, horrific working conditions, etc... Because of all that the modern labor movement was born of which my grandfather played a significant part on the local level. Back then, it was about giving workers a fair shake.

Fast forward to more recent times. When Louisiana's "Right to Work" law was passed it was a time in which workers who were not members of unions attempted to report for work at non-union job sites only to encounter groups of thugs armed with clubs, baseball bats, etc.. lined shoulder to shoulder daring workers to move forward. In addition, the local unions were pushing to unionize many construction projects and require non-union members to join or loose their job. Talk about giving people a bad taste..

Then as we move forward, it seems many workers are tiring of watching their dues spent on salaries for bloated union staffs full of okie dokies and as contributions to political parties whose agendas are completely opposite of their own.



That's very interesting, Abri, because it's normally depicted the other way around in the movies. It's usually a poor union organizer (usually ethnic or woman) who's threatened.
tailgater Offline
#44 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:26 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Unions were critical in helping America become the greatest nation on earth.
Nobody is denying that.
sd72 Offline
#45 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:34 AM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
The coke, as it were, was negotiated in your contract. What's being taken away is the staff at the store to unlock the doors, turn on the light, stock the cooler with coke, and reorder when needed.

Dues provide local unions the staff that works there.

You no longer have to pay dues, where's the coke come from. ??
teedubbya Offline
#46 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:49 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The fed employee union is forced to provide services to non union members..... ie you need not join or pay dues but they must treat you as if you are a union member and represent you in grievances etc. No real distinction between union and non union other than you may not be eligible for a afge lnchbox raffle or such. You in effect are in the union just not paying for it.
HockeyDad Offline
#47 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:51 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
sd72 wrote:
The coke, as it were, was negotiated in your contract. What's being taken away is the staff at the store to unlock the doors, turn on the light, stock the cooler with coke, and reorder when needed.

Dues provide local unions the staff that works there.

You no longer have to pay dues, where's the coke come from. ??




Nope. The coke came from a store. The store hired the employees, unlocks the door, turns on the light, and stocks the cooler.

Your union dues paid for a completely different entity to have a local staff. What does that local staff do? They don't provide the Coke.
HockeyDad Offline
#48 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 10:55 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,192
teedubbya wrote:
The fed employee union is forced to provide services to non union members..... ie you need not join or pay dues but they must treat you as if you are a union member and represent you in grievances etc. No real distinction between union and non union other than you may not be eligible for a afge lnchbox raffle or such. You in effect are in the union just not paying for it.



So did you join?


(By the way, Fed jurisdiction unions are not covered by Michigan's RTW law)
sd72 Offline
#49 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 11:01 AM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
By definition, right-to-work laws grant workers the freedom to reject union membership dues, even if they join a union and enjoy all its benefits. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled in Communications Workers of America v. Beck that employees can limit their union dues exclusively to the cost of union representation (i.e., an employee at, say, GM, Ford, or Kellogg cannot be required to pay for union political outreach or lobbying that is unrelated to the specific employee/employer relationship at hand). In right-to-work states, workers are not even required to pay these Beck-inspired “agency fees.”



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2012/12/13/4-of-detroit-public-school-8th-graders-are-proficient-in-math-is-michigans-right-to-work-law-the-answer/
teedubbya Offline
#50 Posted: Thu, Aug 8 2013, 11:02 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
no. raised an anti union guy and was glad I didn't have to join.

wasn't saying fed law covers MI just that that practice is not unheard of....

have no clue about MI nor do most in here
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages1234>
Back to Top