« Bring back KU discount | Main | McCaskill must go »

March 25, 2011

Re-energize democracy

Isn’t it interesting that when the tea parties had their meetings and demonstrations last year, they touted them as democracy in action? Recently people in Ohio and Wisconsin protested the dictatorial actions of their tea party governors, and all at once the right-wing pundits like Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck and Rep. Paul Ryan see “thuggery” and riots in the streets.

Hogwash. These governors are nothing more than mouthpieces for the oligarchs who want to take over the United States.

If you don’t know what an oligarch is, like I used to tell my students, look it up. You might be surprised at what you find. The poster boys for the term and its definition are the Koch brothers of Wichita.

Is that who we want running this country? I don’t think so.

Warren C. Allen
Raytown

Comments

Ryan Roedel

Sorry...Indiana Republican...not Indian Republican...wow...that does change the context.

Tyler

Zeno, the company has to pay back the government, not the bonus receiptiant. Not to mention they got paid more money for being at the head of a colossal failure. So, that's not exactly the same thing.

Ryan, I absolutely agree with the following statement: "There is no logic or debate about this issue anyway...simply sides."
That's why violence has started. Since neither side will listen to the other, everyone understands violence. So they resort to that.

Navyvet, remember, we assigned meaning to these words we type. They technically are pointless except for what we're taught that they are supposed to mean. It's like a math teacher of mine once said, "You say 2 + 2 = 4. Another guy says 2 + 2 = 5. We think the second guy is wrong, but you're not viewing it from his perspective. If you take away the definition we assigned 2, and substitute with some other definition, it might = 5 to that guy." So, you see, perspective makes all the difference. And that is why the debate will never be solved, because neither side will take a moment to see it from the other's point of view because to one side 2+2=4 and to the other 2+2=5 and they both think they're right. And since there is no superior being, neither side is wrong except for in the eyes of another.

Ryan Roedel

My point still stands...

Ryan Roedel

What a cute goat..

Navyvet

It is pointless to continue debating this topic. You either support putting your cards on the table and digging a deeper hole for Obama in 12 or not. Pick a side.

Wait...that doesn't seem right. Looks like I need to practice Ryan's method of debate a bit more.

Ryan Roedel

Here's a fact for you all...an Indian Republican resigned because it was found that emailed walker about faking an assault to paint the protesters in a negative light. Walker even considered planting individuals in the crowd to upset order.

It's an agenda...and we're not being fooled anymore. Again...is anyone opposing unions a union member?

Ryan Roedel

This is the same back and forth as it always is. Tell me...does anything anyone post change any person's opinion? Usually, as with a topic like this, the sides just dig in deeper. So...talk is cheap. I will say that this attack on organized labor did do one thing...ensure Obama's victory in 12. Just wait!

The cards are on the table...

Ryan Roedel

There is no logic or debate about this issue anyway...simply sides. Of course the public emploee is always the easy target. Why actually fix something...just take it from the civil servents who bare the brunt of most policy decisions. And union memebership has declined possibly because companies fight so hard to keep them out...and it's not to the benefit of their employees. I posted 3 sentences and the wrong chomped at the bit.

Logic...I never said my last post had anything to do with logic. Last I checked, btw, the vast majority of the public does not want to do away with collective bargaining. The unions gave the budget concessions the gov in WI was seeking. It was not about the budget.

And in true con fashion...the zeno says take it away from other people...not me. Oh...and I am no longer an "independent"...I am anti-republican. That good enough for you guys...

It will all catch up with us sooner or later.

Zeno

I wonder if this will work on my wife......

Posted by: Navyvet | March 25, 2011 at 01:52 PM

Use Ryan's logic and My bet is you will be sleeping on the couch or worse. (:>)

Zeno

I guess you're OK with tax dollars going to fund bank executive benefits, but not public employee benefits. You see a difference, I don't.

Posted by: David | March 25, 2011 at 01:46 PM

Well first of all I was not for that at all. You might check the results of that debacle on the 08 elections.
Second it does not make them public employees at all, as we were all told they would be paying it all back with interest. And have been told By the Obama administration how well this has worked and how we ARE being paid back.

And yes, I see a difference. What part do you not understand??

OR Maybe I missed the part where public employees are going to reimburse the public for their sweetheart deals.

Navyvet

Ryan-

Considering that union membership is at it's lowest level in decades I would say that it is their supporters who are against the common man.

Hold on...let me try something:

Debate on this topic is pointless and counter-productive. You are either with the majority of Americans who favor making union members pay more for their benefits or you are not. Pick a side.

Wow, that is so much easier than using logic and facts to win a debate! Just declare it pointless to continue, frame the issue in your most popular talking point and then demand that people choose....why haven't I used this before?

Thank you Ryan, you've shown me how easy debating can be when you don't care about the facts or logic. I wonder if this will work on my wife......

Zeno

Ryan our local "independent" liberal is a Government worker so he knows from where he speaks!
He thinks a "commom man" gets his insurance and retirement benefits paid nearly 100%. he thinks the common man is represented by people who take their dues and work to get the management hired by the public, and therefore are owed the just deserts.
But most of all our "independent" liberal friend does in the end what all libs do. They decide when the debating should be over and let the opposition know it is time for them to JUST SHUT UP!
Thanks, Ryan, we will take that under advisement.

David

Once the banks willingly took bucketloads of money from the government in order to keep themselves afloat, they became (partially) public institutions.

I guess you're OK with tax dollars going to fund bank executive benefits, but not public employee benefits. You see a difference, I don't.

Indy

And for you to get on here and declare the debate over all the while proclamating that if you are against sweatheart collective bargaining deals that you are somehow against the "common" man everywhere....that turns my stomach.

Indy

Many people consider themselves a "common man" without any association to a union. It's disingenious to parlay them as mutually exclusive.

Ryan Roedel

There's really no point in debating this issue anymore. Some are against the common man and union workers and some are not. Pick a side.

Zeno

"Double Standard?"

Your post was meant as a slam against those who cried foul against the Gov. regulating private interprise, but are Ok with the Gov. regulating the comps of its own employees. Whatever else you think is meaningless to my comment. Unless it is just that you really cannot understand the difference.

David

"This is a good example of liberal thought. To David, the GOVERNMENT controlling a PRIVATE industries wages is the same as controlling what its own employees make!!"

or, he finds entities that unilaterally adjust contracts post facto troublesome.

Zeno

"Funny how when the govt wanted to reexamine the bonus structure of executives working for banks that recieved TARP money, the cries were 'These are contracts that were entered into in good faith, we can't adjust them after the fact!'"
Posted by David

Thanks for your honesty here David, even if you did not mean to be so open.

This is a good example of liberal thought. To David, the GOVERNMENT controlling a PRIVATE industries wages is the same as controlling what its own employees make!!


Navyvet

Yes, your definition of facist fits Walker to a tee. I would never mistake a union protestor in Wisconsin for a tea party protestor as the WI signs were well worded with correct grammar and spelling.

As I said, Walker's beef was union busting, not the budget. He said as much to "Mr. Koch," and that's the legislation that was passed. He didn't run on union busting. He has ample ways to solve the budget problems other than on the backs of teachers

GG, so as long as a sign's spelling and grammer are correct the message doesn't matter? What happened to all the talk of civility and good-natured political discourse? Do as I say and not as I do I guess...

"your definition of facist fits Walker to a tee." How exactly? Did he bus in supporters from out of state to disrupt the protesters? No, but the unions did to disrupt the business of the WI capitol. Did he threaten to bomb the houses and offices of union supporters and scare the families of the opposition legislators? No, but the union supporters did to Republican legislators. Did he have his supporters call his opponents vile and vulgar names during marches? No, but the unions did about him. Oh that's right...as long as their signs are grammatically correct it doesn't matter to you what they say.

"He has ample ways to solve the budget problems other than on the backs of teachers" Like how exactly when the pensions and benefits of teachers (among others) are the biggest drain on the state's coffers? Wisconsin is broke! Cuts have to be made and it's only logical to start with the item that sucks up the most tax dollars.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright