OK...you are a smart guy, you have to be able to see that its possible that an organization can be Constitutionally viable yet something they want to do not be. I'll give you a perfect example.
The Catholic Church is a Constitutionally viable organization, however, they want to outlaw abortion, something that a lot of people have said (including the Supreme Court at one time) is unconstitutional. So, do you see the difference? I am not saying that unions are unconstitutional, but some of the things they may want to be allowed to do sure do come close to or cross over that line. And, just so I understand,telling an off-color joke would violate some one's rights, but forcibly taking part of someones paycheck for something they do not want isn't? I guess if a majority of employees vote that its ok to tell off color jokes than anyone who would be offended could just be told 'You don't have to work here.' On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Gruss Gott <grussg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Scott wrote: > > > > I am not claiming I have a right to work anywhere I want. But then > again, > > you seem to want to make it so unoins con be set up anywhere they want. > > Uh, what?? > > All I'm saying is that either unions are a fact of life or they're > unconstitutional in which case we can try to get rid of them. > > If you do the analysis, you'll see they're a fact of life. > > So, sure, bitch all you want, but just don't say your "rights" are > violated. They're not. > > As to what Robert said, it went this way: > > * I said that Bush spent a decade pissing all over The Constitution. > This is not only my opinion given the Supreme Court ruled against his > administration on Constitutional grounds. > > * Then Charlie implied that Obama was somehow doing this as well by > erroneously accusing him of supporting taxing the AIG bonuses which he > doesn't. > > * Then Robert decided to build that absence of truth by adding Obama > was trying to do away with secret ballot which, again, is factually > not true and further it's unions' #1 legislative priority. > > So my point in this sea of falsehoods is simple: > > 1.) Unions are Constitutionally viable labor organizations. > > 2.) Adding Card Check won't change that. > > 3.) If you don't like unions or Card check, fine, but stop pretending > there's a violation of rights here because there factually is not. > > I hate stop signs, but I'm not arguing they violate my rights. > > We both hate unions, but only you are arguing they violate your rights. > > Get it now > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:293057 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
