Sheilbh's Scott Walker Lovefest and Union Bashing Megathread

[DGuller]

I agree, that does make way more sense than what Berkut wrote.

[Berkut]

Do individual evaluations expose perhaps some unfair treatment? Yes. But the effects of that are pretty manageable and a lot better than stupid metrics which don't work at all.

More importantly it is vastly better than just saying "ZOMG WE CANNOT POSSIBLY EVALUATE TEACHER PERFORMANCE! GIVE THEM ALL RAISES AND TENURE NO MATTER WHAT!"

[Berkut]

What is interesting about this debate is the claim that we cannot possibly talk about public sector union influence on politicians without discussing campaign finance in general.

That is an interesting position. The claim by the resident Dem tribe members is that this is clearly a matter of principle...not at all just partisan politics trying to protect their own interests...

What is odd though is that we have had threads specifically about campaign finance reform. But DG and friends didn't show up in those demanding that we include a discussion of public sector union influence as well, and we could not possibly look at one without the other. In fact they were very content to join me in railing against the currently broken system and the need to fix it.

Conversely, in those threads I was in fact perfectly happy to talk about (and vehemently support) campaign finance reform without any need to insist that we cannot do so without dragging in the issue of public sector unions. In this thread I am quite content to talk about the need for public sector unions to be neutered without need to drag in campaign finance reform.

This is the difference between operating on principles as opposed to being driven by political allegiance first and principles a very, VERY distant second...if at all.

[Berkut]

I agree, that does make way more sense than what Berkut wrote.

LOL. You are taking your douchebaggery to new and exciting levels.


edit: I was just thinking how funny this kind if strictly nasty personal comment is from you - it works right in line with your general outlook that principles are completely secondary to winning the fight, no matter how petty and trivial it is...

[CountDeMoney]

Well thank you for explaining what Seedy wouldn't (or perhaps couldn't).

Too much typing beyond profanties.  Deal.

For myself, that doesn't make him sound like an attractive candidate as it sounds like he'd be another President without juice.

Yeah, unfortunate nature of guys like Webb (see: McCain, 2000) is they make as many enemies as friends.  Would be nice to see him get traction in the early primaries, but I dont see that happening.

[grumbler]

Well thank you for explaining what Seedy wouldn't (or perhaps couldn't). For myself, that doesn't make him sound like an attractive candidate as it sounds like he'd be another President without juice.

We've always had presidents without juice (barring TR, I suppose).  Webb would be different in that he'd also be without owners.  But, as you note, that doesn't make him an attractive candidate to some.  Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

[Razgovory]

This is about as stupid a blog piece as I have seen in a while. The whole attraction of Webb is that he isn't into politics because he needs the ego-stroking or dick-sucking.  He wants to get things done, and thought he did get them done as a senator (IIRC, it had been more than 30 years since a freshman Senator got as much sponsored legislation passed as Webb did).  Why is it "senseless" to want to elect a politician that gets things done?  Why is it "senseless" that Webb run for president because some guy on the internet has tried to niche him where it makes zero sense. The whole "Webb's niche in the race would apparently be as a more populist, dovish alternative to Hillary Clinton" followed by "that's an odd profile for a guy who is supposed to be winning votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party" just makes me conclude that this anonymous Post blogger is a moron, because he is the guy who invented this "odd profile" that drives the conclusion that Webb's candidacy "makes no sense"! 

Webb isn't a pretty-boy ass-kisser.  He says what he thinks even when it isn't popular.  He can take politics and fund-raising or leave it.  He doesn't hew an ideological line, preferring the centrist approach of voting for policies based on their inherent value rather than based on what the Party says.  He isn't willing to do anything to get elected. Those are what make him different and attractive as a candidate.  Add in the bonus fact that moronic WaPo bloggers think that his candidacy "makes no sense" and you have the hat trick.

Oh, My!  This is reminds we when you guys went ga-ga over Fred Thompson.  "He's different!  He's not actually a politician!  He's non-partisan.  He'll save us."  Now he tricks old people out of their property.  Guess what.  Jim Webb is a politician.  He likes to get his dick sucked just like anyone else.  He has an ideology, and being centrist doesn't mean you are bereft of ideology.  If he's not willing to do anything to get elected then he won't be elected.  That's why Fred Thompson didn't go anywhere, he wasn't willing to put the work into it.  It's grueling work to run for President.  It's like 18 hours a day of public speaking and traveling for two years.

[DGuller]

I agree, that does make way more sense than what Berkut wrote.

LOL. You are taking your douchebaggery to new and exciting levels.


edit: I was just thinking how funny this kind if strictly nasty personal comment is from you - it works right in line with your general outlook that principles are completely secondary to winning the fight, no matter how petty and trivial it is...

Your level of intentional projection is on the level of Vladimir Putin.  I did get a little nasty, but not before you were acting like your typical prick self and questioned my motivation for trying to clarify what you wrote and then denied you wrote.  You should know by now that I often do respond in kind, except that my responses, unlike your initial offenses, actually do contain a large grain of truth in them.

[Razgovory]

New Berkut gets subsumed by Old Berkut when the topic of Unions come up.

[Valmy]

Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

So is corruption.

Except freedom to organize is not a form of corruption.

No, corruption is a form of corruption.

[Razgovory]

That's not helpful in the slightest.

[grumbler]

Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

So is corruption.

Except freedom to organize is not a form of corruption.

No, corruption is a form of corruption.

Illogical Raz gets subsumed by Irrational Raz when the topic of Unions comes up.

[Razgovory]

I have no idea what you are getting at.  The ability to organize is not a form of corruption.  Corruption is Corruption is true but tautological.

[DGuller]

I have no idea what you are getting at.  The ability to organize is not a form of corruption.  Corruption is Corruption is true but tautological.

Well, what you're doing after that is kinda iffy.  You may organize all you want, but to be an effective labor union, you have to be able to conspire against the public (which is one definition of corruption).  Labor unions can't work very well if they can't threaten their members to keep in line, threaten potential scabs to stay out, or enjoy legal protection that would accomplish both these things in a more civilized manner.  These evils may be countering other evils, which is why a simplistic "good" or "bad" judgment is indeed simplistic, but that shouldn't be swept under the rug either.

[Razgovory]

I have no idea what you are getting at.  The ability to organize is not a form of corruption.  Corruption is Corruption is true but tautological.

Well, what you're doing after that is kinda iffy.  You may organize all you want, but to be an effective labor union, you have to be able to conspire against the public (which is one definition of corruption).  Labor unions can't work very well if they can't threaten their members to keep in line, threaten potential scabs to stay out, or enjoy legal protection that would accomplish both these things in a more civilized manner.  These evils may be countering other evils, which is why a simplistic "good" or "bad" judgment is indeed simplistic, but that shouldn't be swept under the rug either.

Explain "conspire against the public".