Here's an interesting read on the Wisconsin recall election and the fraud that ensued...
This was an article that Richard Charnin wrote in May 2012: http://bit.ly/LlIuPb Here's the post recall blog post: http://bit.ly/MU9pp9 Something is rotten in Denmark folks...what is the chance that, with all the democrats and many independents, all fired up to get rid of his corrupt ass, that he would win with the exact same numbers as he did in 2010 when he was originally elected. Exit poll raw data shows that his challenger won. Something is not right. This is a phenomenon known as red shift. Mr. Charnin believes that the only reason Obama won is that they underestimated the margin that he won by and thus, despite Diebold's best efforts, Obama won anyway. After the debacle in Ohio, this is a very feasible hypothesis that should be investigated. Why is it that election machines are not monitored and programmed by a government official? Why is it that the company that does this was able to not send it the PROM chips that program the machines for inspection. Read the blogs and this article from addicting info: http://bit.ly/LageOX -----Original Message----- From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 5:03 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Collective Bargaining On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Cameron Childress <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is all open to interpretation, obviously. I think there are some honest arguments against unionization. And the pro/con arguments for unions tend to vary a bit between public sector and private sector. I'm (mostly) pro-union but not rigid about it. Every single thing about the Walker campaign in Wisconsin, however, seems slimy, unethical and dishonest. What is the intellectually honest argument that they aren't trying to effectively kill collective bargaining? If you want to make the argument against the right to unionize period, ok. That's a debate. This shit though? I've yet to see anyone able to make a cogent argument for the items in the bill and have it amount to more than "We don't like unions and are trying to knee cap them". If we want to discuss optional membership in a union as opposed to mandatory membership, that's something I can really ponder. I've considered arguments on both sides and I'm still unsure, can't quite form a definitive position one way or another. The Wisconsin bill, however, doesn't have anything to do with this point. I also think that there are a lot of options for avoiding unionization on the part of employers. For instance, my sister and her husband both work for a local grocery store. They have 3 locations I believe. Grocery stores are, for the most part, unionized. Their isn't. The reason? Store owners have actively maintained a policy of keeping wages and benefits at or above comparable positions at other groceries in town. They haven't tried to fuck over workers. Employees, in return, have not unionized and have had pretty good relations (overall) with management. That, admittedly, is a bit harder in the public sector where you don't have the same competition, so you have to look at things a bit differently. None the less, Walker and his cronies were out to knee cap unions and undermine the very basis of collective bargaining while pretending to just want to stream line union processes. It was dishonest and dirty to the core. And they got away with it. While you make like the idea of doing away with unions, I think that if you really look at what they did and how they did it, you'll be holding your nose too. Their shit stinks plenty. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351829 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
