The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Oh come on, that quote from rep. Callton is hilarious, like a 19th century victorian getting the vapors

[Y2HH]

Oh come on, that quote from rep. Callton is hilarious, like a 19th century victorian getting the vapors

 

I repeat what I already said.

[GoSox05]

Another crazy anti-choice bill. These bills seem to be getting more extreme by the week.

[StrangeSox]

I repeat what I already said.

 

"I wouldn't want to offend a lady's delicate sensibilities with such talk!" is sexist and hilarious given the context of the issue at hand.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I wish she would have been technically correct and referred to her uterus as the focus of the legislation being considered and not vagina. Anti-abortion laws are aimed at controlling what goes on in the uterus, not the vagina.

[StrangeSox]

Careful talking about these sorts of things, Jim, there may be ladies around!

[CanOfCorn]

I wish she would have been technically correct and referred to her uterus as the focus of the legislation being considered and not vagina. Anti-abortion laws are aimed at controlling what goes on in the uterus, not the vagina.

 

You know what they say, "The quickest way to a woman's uterus is through her vagina."

[StrangeSox]

National Review has replaced one racist bigot (the Derb) with another:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...rvatism/258749/

 

- It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.

 

-The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.

 

-The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.

 

-No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.

 

There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country's founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society - the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we 'know' it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically.

 

[CanOfCorn]

National Review has replaced one racist bigot (the Derb) with another:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...rvatism/258749/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Holy monkey!

[cabiness42]

Commerce Secretary John Bryson has resigned.

[StrangeSox]

SCOTUS issued another overly broad 5-4 (on the over-reach, 7-2 on the outcome of the particular issue at hand) ruling that may have serious impact on unions.

 

http://prospect.org/article/court%E2%80%99...t-walker-moment

 

The wording in the majority opinion, which broadened the scope of the case well beyond anything briefed or argued, seems to be signaling that the court would be willing to void the whole idea of a closed shop, essentially finding a "right to work" in the Constitution and expanding that law nationally. That would pretty much be the final blow to unions.

 

edit: It's notable that the court went out of its way today in another ruling, FCC v Fox, to make a very narrow ruling that didn't address any first amendment issues at hand regarding indecency policies but went out of its way the other way in this ruling.

Edited June 21, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

I dont think the court would strike down Unions, and nothing in the brief suggests that either.

 

Whether its opt-in or opt-out, doesnt there necessarily have to be a union for it to matter?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Opt-in seriously diminishes their dues-collecting abilities, and the ruling doesn't appear to limit this only to political funding but to dues collections in general. It would be right-to-work nation wide. Under RTW, unions can exist, but they have to cover non-members under collectively bargained contracts and disputes and cannot collect dues or fees for these services. This creates a huge free-rider problem for them and its why you see unions mostly disappear from RTW states.

 

eta: it's not that they're actually going to outlaw unions, they're just going to cripple them.

Edited June 21, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

I dont agree that opt-in v opt-out will cripple Unions.

 

I think it will make sure that Union members have more say in what their Union is doing, and they arent just forced to pay money into something where they have no idea what is happening to it.

 

It would be right-to-work nation wide. Under RTW, unions can exist, but they have to cover non-members under collectively bargained contracts and disputes and cannot collect dues or fees for these services. This creates a huge free-rider problem for them and its why you see unions mostly disappear from RTW states.

 

Where was this in the ruling? I saw nothing that stated that unions must be RTW. Only Breyer's dissent even mentions right to work, no where in the ruling does it say that Unions must cover non-Unions, or am I just missing it? I didnt read all 50 pages.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

In the specific case, a special levy for political spending, I don't have a problem with opt-in, along the lines of Sotomayor's concurrence.

 

How the system usually operates is that groups like the SEUI are allowed to collect fees from non-members who are working in SEIU shops as these non-members benefit from collective bargaining and dispute-negotiation services that the SEIU provides. They are not required to pay the portions of the members dues that the unions spend on political campaigning. All fine and good, and in this case, the SEIU had a special assessment and didn't inform and give a chance for fee-payers to opt-out, as they should be. This portion was decided 7-2, with only Breyers and Kagan dissenting.

 

However, the ruling doesn't stop there. The language of the ruling expands well beyond this narrow scope and finds that opt-in is required by the first amendment. This is a much larger ruling than it could have been, and it's easy to see the difference in fundraising ability that opt-in vs opt-out policies has. As well all know, thanks to this same SC, money is speech, and this ruling appears to be inviting another case challenging all opt-out union dues policies:

“[C] compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights” [...] “Our cases to date have tolerated this ‘impingement,’ and we do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.”

A ruling along the same lines in such a case would have the effect of expanding RTW legislation nation-wide. In RTW states now, unions are required to represent all employees during a grievance, regardless of their membership status. All employees also benefit from wages, hours, benefits and workplace rights and safety bargaining regardless of membership status.

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

This is a pretty awful taser incident:

 

http://boingboing.net/2012/06/19/police-we...t-to-relea.html

[StrangeSox]

[farmteam]

 

I can believe the numbers about the WMDs, but the birther numbers seem a bit extreme for Republicans.

[Y2HH]

http://videosift.com/video/Drugs-are-bad-mkay-Head-of-DEA

 

When officials so blatantly dodge questions like this, it annoys the hell out of me.

 

On a side note, Jared is a real life friend of mine, seeing him in congress on these sorts of panels is somewhat surreal to me.

[StrangeSox]

http://videosift.com/video/Drugs-are-bad-mkay-Head-of-DEA

 

When officials so blatantly dodge questions like this, it annoys the hell out of me.

 

On a side note, Jared is a real life friend of mine, seeing him in congress on these sorts of panels is somewhat surreal to me.

 

I was going to post the Wonkette version of that the other day, hilarious. Great job by him.

[CrimsonWeltall]

http://videosift.com/video/Drugs-are-bad-mkay-Head-of-DEA

 

When officials so blatantly dodge questions like this, it annoys the hell out of me.

 

I can't decide if that video makes her look more dishonest or more dumb.

[Soxbadger]

The war on drugs puts so much money in so many different pockets.

 

The biggest risk of marijuana is that you can grow it at home, so if they legalize it they may not see a windfall. Although most people are way to lazy to put the time and effort into growing good weed.

[StrangeSox]

The war on drugs puts so much money in so many different pockets.

 

The biggest risk of marijuana is that you can grow it at home, so if they legalize it they may not see a windfall. Although most people are way to lazy to put the time and effort into growing good weed.

 

Right, just like I can brew beer at home or make wine. Hell of a lot easier to run on down to the store.

[Soxbadger]

Growing marijuana is significantly easier than brewing beer. You could just throw seeds in your backyard and likely get 1 plant, although who knows the quality.

 

That being said, I still think most people would buy super high grade over taking the risk of growing their own.

[farmteam]

Growing marijuana is significantly easier than brewing beer. You could just throw seeds in your backyard and likely get 1 plant, although who knows the quality.

 

That being said, I still think most people would buy super high grade over taking the risk of growing their own.

 

Probably, but couldn't they also legalize the sale of it but not the growing of it? I don't see why not. I'm not saying that'd be a good idea, but it's a possibility.