jwrevagent

Sorry-but there is no constitutional right to strike-protest is part of free speech, but striking for state or federal workers is ILLEGAL That is why the air traffic controllers who went on strike were fired back in the day. Now of course, the Constitution means little, especially the right to free speech-only if you are a lefty are you free to speak-and the religious freedom is under fire as is the right to bear arms! I am done with this. Take care, and Merry Christmas! Enjoy and be grateful for the lovely family you have.

Cuda2020

Your first sentence is contrary and confusing. At first you say there is no right to strike or protest and in the same sentence you say it is a part of free speech, so what are you saying, which do yo think it is? No, this is not Russia, China, or N. Korea, it doesn't matter who you work for you are allowed to peacefully protest, you may lose your job(illegally), but no one is allowed to stop you as long as it's peacefully done.

The airline pilots may have signed a contract that where they agreed to never protest which revoked their right to do so, this is why these practices which are becoming more poplar are so detrimental government and to our rights as citizens.

Second the federal Supremacy clause basically states that if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the state law is preempted(meaning fails). The federal law is the supreme law of the land, period. Again this is why we are a Democratic Constitutional Federal Republic. Yeah we're complicated, LOL But it's worked.

Seems to me the constitution means a whole lot more to the left as we are constantly trying to uphold it from the rights exploitation of it. The problem most of the time is you folks don't bother to get the whole story and only read the propaganda, as referring to the free speech BS. You folks have the unmitigated gall to throw accusations before knowing all the facts or understanding how they are applied to each circumstance. I'm assuming you're referring to the Anne Coulter revoked *performance*, for her to be able to speak her diatribe before impressionable minds, and learn about who shut her down, it had nothing to do with the democratic party, and I don't care if every single one of them on the school board was one, it is still separate from the party, but this is the type of crap we have to put up with and do it without retaliating in the same degree of offense.

Anne Coulter has the type of speeches to anger people and incite them to r**t and violence, therefore the college told her to take it else where, not on their campus as they are responsible for their students and citizens on their property, try and digest that for a moment, nothing to do with revoking her right to free speech, she can go blab in a public park anytime. So that whole thing was a giant crock and manipulation leading the right around by their noses.

I am grateful for my family, and I don't need anyone to tell me to be thanks, but hey, you have a Merry Christmas too.

jwrevagent

Just read the first paragraph of what I wrote again-strikes are NOT protests when the strikers are federal or state employees, which, in WI at least, public teachers are. Protests are part of free speech, of course, but striking is a different matter altogether. The Teachers know this, and they agree to it in their contracts- now I am done with this topic-we just will disagree, and that is OK. This is the US, after all, and freedom of speech still has some semblance of validity here, and the freedom of thought and to disagree is also part of what makes this country great. Ann Coulter was invited to speak, and when the students did not want her there and began to destroy property-the police stood by and did nothing to stop it, as I recall. Not sure where you get your information-I have listened to her several times, do not always like what she says, but nothing in her speeches should foment such a reaction from these "educated" students!

Cuda2020

Are you serious, you think a strike is not a form of protesting. I don't know what to say to you. Geeez, Look it up,
a strike is a form of protesting in a particular industry in order to force employers to provide better working conditions or pay. Fine, we will put this to rest. But you need to gather more credible information, just saying. If Anne Coulter was a man 200 years ago, her offenses to others would wind up having her shot in a duel.

straightUp Loc: California

YES! Absolutely!!!

We aren't talking about rape or murder here, we're talking about a strike which is where workers stand up for themselves by putting their value to the test. "You want me to work? Stop ripping us off." No state should ever have the right to tell workers they can't strike, that's just BS. So by all means, break that i***t law!

Try to understand that I am not indoctrinated into submission like conservatives typically are. I can still think for myself and distinguish between a good law and a bad law and there are plenty of bad laws that SHOULD be broken! Do you think our founding fathers could have achieved what they did without breaking some laws? Do you think the N**i laws that punished people for helping Jews were good laws?


Now you're losing me. I'm not familiar enough with the story to follow. But I know that in general, when kids in a classroom don't behave they don't learn, which is kind of the point of being in a classroom. I don't see how you think the two situations are even remotely similar.

Well... if the kids aren't behaving, that'll happen won't it?


I don't know if that actually happened, I take everything conservatives say with a pinch of salt. But if it did happen, I can see the reason for it, especially if the state is s**tty enough to prohibit a worker from striking. I would have done the same thing in a minute.


There's no hypocrisy on my part... You're just assuming everyone is a conformist.


I guess you got a sucky union with a roster of sucky workers, sorry.


Maybe it's the industry I got involved with but people that I work with are either driven by their own interests or they aren't. There isn't much incentive that a union could possibly take away. But I guess I can see your point in a more mundane setting... Certainly, there isn't much personal incentive in something like screwing caps on toothpaste tubes so I guess the company would need to dangle a carrot.


I'm not sure I follow the logic here. The only incentive anyone gets from a union is going to be higher compensation... if that's in wages, there will be more taxes going to the state, not less. Am I missing something?


What part of the school provides smaller classes and better teachers? Isn't that administration?


If the school administrator did a good enough job to save the school $500,000 over the fiscal year, you don't think he deserves a bonus?
...
I do get your point.
I think it's one of those things where you can't really generalize it. It's more of a case by case kind of thing, but I often do wonder how much administrative cost is excessive.

This is why I like public sector better for some things. For instance, the administrative cost of the average, individual, health insurance policy in the private sector was 20%. That was in 2004 when I last checked... At that same time, the administrative cost of Medicare was only 5%. That's because on a federal level, people are aware that they can actually democratically repeal and replace the elected official in charge of education. If people in the municipalities where the school districts are knew this, they could maybe make a difference.


Then if it's no different from public school, why all the fuss?


We have different definitions then.

I use the classic definition which says a theory has to be based on a specific observation, usually an experiment or a test.


Again, science is based on observations. So here's where I point out that patterns of evolution HAVE been observed... Patterns that match biblical descriptions have NOT.

My scientific eyeballs see creationism as another theory and certainly a fascinating one but it lacks evidence, so it's not all that exciting and really, it's not science.

Teaching evolution is teaching children how science actually works and how we use it to discover things, like the theory of evolution. Creationism has nothing to offer to that quest because so far nothing has been observed.

I would tell your parents to get their money back on your parochial "science" education. (just kidding)


That's an oxymoron. Science can't be immutable.


There ya go!


I see science more as a way of gaining knowledge. It just so happens, that most of our knowledge was gained through science and is therefore categorized AS "science". Faith is an affirmation of something in the absence of evidence.

At least that's the way I see it.


Yes, that does seem to be the result. But I'm not unhappy about it. My daughter is very spiritual as am I. We just don't do the religion thing.


It probably wouldn't be a long one.


Yes, it's unfortunate.


I agree that there is a certain "poverty" resulting from our changing priorities in education. I'm saddened mostly by the loss of liberal arts, because that's where student learn to think. Everything else is rote.

I'm not so much on board with the respect for knowledge though. Not if you mean respect for rules and assertions just because someone said so.

straightUp Loc: California

You're a little confused... let me try to clear that up for you... Those air traffic controllers were employed by the federal government. As an employer, the federal government has the right to fire a worker who refuses to work. The key to a strike is to get ALL the workers to stop working with the intention of showing the employer how much they depend on the workers. But sometimes the employer is in a better bargaining position and is willing to fire ALL the workers anyway, which is why a strike is always risky for the worker.

So President Reagan, who was in charge of the federal government at the time, fired those workers because they refused to work, not because strikes are illegal.

Cuda2020

I've learned through my own lack of knowledge that I was wrong here. That this strike was in fact illegal, but it was illegal because they were "essential workers", they were vital to air travel safety, if they wanted to protest they had to do it on their own time. Unfortunately this gave their collective power away to try and make improvements.

Which means Reagan was not interfering with their right to protest and he had the right to fire the workers.

The controllers, by walking off, put peoples lives in danger and they could have actually been brought up with charges and prosecuted. Serious stuff.