Speakeasy forum

General discussion

A win for America. Loss for Unionism & Progressives.

by James Denison / June 25, 2012 3:33 AM PDT

Finally, a big card that was in the back pocket of Socialist & Communist has been defeated decisively.

The Supreme Court made "a decision on a case that will have a profound effect on Big Labor. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled against the SEIU.

At issue in this case was whether SEIU could mandate that its employees pay a special union fee that would be spent on political activities without providing them with information about the fee and opportunity to object to it. The Court decided that this practice violated its members First Amendment rights and reversed the liberal Ninth Circuit decision that ruled in favor of the SEIU.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/blog/2012/06/21/another-crushing-blow-unions?fb_xd_fragment&intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1ypbDHotf

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: A win for America. Loss for Unionism & Progressives.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: A win for America. Loss for Unionism & Progressives.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
In your dreams (and Hannity's), James
by Josh K / June 25, 2012 3:41 AM PDT

The ruling only says that the union can't make its members pay a special, additional union fee that is intended to go to political contributions, without first explaining what the money is for and giving the union member the option to not pay it.

Sorry James, and sorry Sean, but this is not a "crushing blow to unions."

Collapse -
RE: two of the most liberal justices on the Court,
by JP Bill / June 25, 2012 4:34 AM PDT
two of the most liberal justices on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, who is an Obama appointee

I suppose, if either of those 2 judges side with Obama's position, in another case(which just happens be a ruling YOU disagree with) ...they'll be accused of being in Obama's 'back pocket"?
Collapse -
so much supposition
by James Denison / June 25, 2012 4:48 AM PDT

so little facts to back it up. Ho hum.

Collapse -
You already accused the governor of Hawaii.....
by Josh K / June 25, 2012 4:53 AM PDT
In reply to: so much supposition

.....of being in Obama's back pocket for certifying the authenticity of his birth certificate, so there is precedent for that "supposition."

Collapse -
which Justice
by James Denison / June 25, 2012 5:13 AM PDT

1) is from Hawaii?

2) was serving in a political office?

3) worked in Obama's campaign?

4) befriended Obama Sr and Ann Stanley Dunham in college?

Ha, it seems you actually have no "precedent" so time to quit pretending you are a lawyer.

Collapse -
If the facts don't agree with what you want,
by Diana Forum moderator / June 25, 2012 7:11 AM PDT
In reply to: which Justice

change the facts. Devil


Collapse -
RE; so much supposition
by JP Bill / June 25, 2012 4:56 AM PDT
In reply to: so much supposition

I'm not as good at it as you are..but I'm trying...I have a long way to go.

I've permalinked your post...so be careful what you post about any future rulings.

Collapse -
Can we all join together to buy James a dictionary ?
by grimgraphix / June 26, 2012 2:53 AM PDT

He seems to not understand what the words "socialist" and "communist" means.


Collapse -
I believe James uses the Speakeasy Dictionary.....
by Josh K / June 26, 2012 2:57 AM PDT

.....which defines both "Socialist" and "Communist" as "Not Republican."


Collapse -
(NT) And European.
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / June 26, 2012 5:30 AM PDT
Collapse -
Well, naturally
by Josh K / June 26, 2012 6:28 AM PDT
In reply to: And European.

Everyone knows that all of Europe has the exact same socialist system. Wink

Collapse -
France ...
by Kees_B Forum moderator / June 26, 2012 7:02 AM PDT
In reply to: Well, naturally

has a new socialist president (who beated Sarkozy) and a socialist majority in parliament since last weeks elections.

So that's a good start.


Collapse -
It's really simple
by James Denison / June 26, 2012 11:02 AM PDT

Socialism is what people vote in and then when they can't get rid of it they discover they have Communism.

Collapse -
Do you know who Francis Bellamy is ?
by grimgraphix / June 26, 2012 12:43 PM PDT
In reply to: It's really simple

Francis Bellamy was a Baptist minister and the author of the United States' Pledge of Allegiance.

He was also a Christian Socialist.

So by your definition, the Pledge of Allegiance, written by a socialist, would logically make it a communist pledge... right?

I guess his supporters threw in the "under God" part during the McCarthy era of 1954 to balance out the Godless communism intention of the original author?

Collapse -
Did you also know he was fired for his Socialism?
by James Denison / June 26, 2012 4:06 PM PDT

Bellamy was a Christian Socialist who "championed 'the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources, which he believed was inherent in the teachings of Jesus.'" but he was forced to leave his Boston church the previous year because of the socialist bent of his sermons.

Bellamy's views on immigration and universal suffrage were somewhat less egalitarian. He wrote that "[a] democracy like ours cannot afford to throw itself open to the world where every man is a lawmaker, every dull-witted or fanatical immigrant admitted to our citizenship is a bane to the commonwealth; where all classes of society merge insensibly into one another."
Collapse -
Your post doesn't address anything in the post above it
by Ziks511 / June 28, 2012 2:25 PM PDT

So what if his church didn't like him. His reservations on immigration and universal suffrage prove that while he called himself a Christian Socialist, as many did early in the 20th Century his views had limits. He wasn't a Communist in Socialist clothing as your previous posts would indicate. He was concerned with social issues, but his views about solutions had limits, and not the limits favoured by Communists, like the secret police and confiscation of property and the nationalization of industries. Your post demonstrates his incompatibility with Communist dicta, and vitiates (eviscerates if you prefer) your argument that Socialism produces Communism. Communism is the false refuge of the desperate and poor. It has never arisen in the societies that Marx predicted it would, Industrialized quasi democracies like Britain and Germany.

Now if Health Care is a Socialist plot, blame Winston Churchill who introduced it into Britain in 1907 as a Conservative Cabinet Minister.

I could go on with examples but I don't think it would change anyone's mind. There is nothing so immovable as a closed mind.


Collapse -
you're waisting your time.
by grimgraphix / June 28, 2012 3:50 PM PDT

James knew he ducked the issue. To continue addressing him is giving him a reason to continue redirecting the conversation.

Collapse -
Wow, both of you missing it
by James Denison / June 28, 2012 4:46 PM PDT

His argument was basically that here's someone who did something patriotic, and was a Socialist, and called himself a Christian, which I guess is supposed to imply that Christianity is supposed to be Socialism.

Pointing out he was fired for his Socialist beliefs by those very same Christians proves quite the opposite to the point Ziks strained to make.

some days I just have to shame my head in disbelief at you two....

Collapse -
... and the pledge was a gimmick designed to sell flags
by grimgraphix / June 28, 2012 10:53 PM PDT

Sometimes your capacity to rewrite history to meet your own agenda is absolutely disgraceful.

Look James. You troll these boards everyday. Those of us that humor you by responding, do so with tongue firmly in cheek... but sometimes your comments are so outrageous or grow so fatigued humoring you, that even we will break character and call you on it.

Collapse -
the "troll" word?
by James Denison / June 29, 2012 4:07 PM PDT

Wasn't that banned a long time ago? Has that been lifted?

If you can't accept the truth, there's no need to get nasty about it.

Collapse -
would you prefer "instigator"
by grimgraphix / June 29, 2012 4:31 PM PDT
In reply to: the "troll" word?

..."chummer"..."baiter"... or maybe "conservative pundit" ?

Collapse -
I've often said that the only thing wrong with Christianity
by Diana Forum moderator / June 30, 2012 12:22 PM PDT

was Christians.

If people actually followed the teachings of Jesus, there would never have been any progroms or crusades or Catholics and Protestants fighting each other or people being burned or hanged.

I have heard so many times that, if Jesus showed at your church, would he be welcomed? I have a feeling that, in a lot of chuches, the answer would be no.


Collapse -
LOL, that's like saying
by James Denison / June 30, 2012 12:44 PM PDT

the only thing wrong with Native Americans are Indians, or the only thing wrong with Africans are blacks.

Collapse -
But you don't choose to be
by Diana Forum moderator / July 2, 2012 1:17 AM PDT

Native or African American so you could be or believe anything you want.

Theoritically, you choose to be a Christian which is supposed to mean a follower of Christ. I know that you've seen all the contortions that "Christians" go through to show that the Bible and Christ's teachings "prove" their point of view.

The Southern Baptists broke off from other Baptists because they knew that the Bible justified having the colored as slaves and the colored were better off that way.

Catholics justified burning Tyndale at the stake after strangulating him for translating the Bible into English. Christians throughout the ages justified killing men and women they didn't like as witches.

I have often said that man is not a rational animal, it is a rationalizing one. This is what I believe and this is why I believe it and don't bother me with facts. Religious leaders of all faiths are particularly good at this. Christians and Muslims are particularly good at it.

That is why I said that the only problem with Christianity are Christians. I'm sure a lot of Muslims are saying the same thing about Islam. If both concentrated on loving each other instead of trying to force their particular brand of their religion on everyone around them.

Over time, Christians have killed more Christians and Muslims have killed more Muslims than anyone else.


Collapse -
God sent people into slavery at times
by James Denison / July 2, 2012 2:54 AM PDT

Gonna take that one up with Him?

Collapse -
RE: God sent people into slavery at times
by JP Bill / July 2, 2012 3:46 AM PDT

because of their skin color/ethnicity? (your Native Americans are Indians,Africans are blacks reference)

What's that got to do with slavery?

Just checking, because I don't read/quote/tell stories from, the Bible.

The only thing wrong with Christianity is Christians AND Slavery?

Anything else you want to add?

Collapse -
Jesus already did that one
by James Denison / June 30, 2012 12:50 PM PDT

but it wasn't the Christians who rejected him. Uh, did you forget that?

John 1:11 - He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Mark 6:4 - But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

Luke 4:24 - And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

John 8 - Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:

Collapse -
See what I mean?
by Diana Forum moderator / July 2, 2012 1:20 AM PDT

The Jews were looking for their Messiah and he shows up but doesn't fit their idea of a Messiah, they rejected him.

How would Christians do today? Would he show up and not fit their idea of what the second coming should be so he would rejected by his own again?


Collapse -
Reminds me of something attributed to Gandhi....
by Josh K / July 2, 2012 1:40 AM PDT

.....though there is some dispute over whether he actually said it:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?