Both parties are beholden and reliant on their big money donors. The Republicans seem to get donations from the doers and producers like corporations but so do democrats to a degree. Instead it appears the dems get their funding from unionistas, Hollywood, George Soros, liberal media outlets, etc. I sit here in the middle and chuckle at both sides but find myself more often than not laughing and shaking my head more at the liberals and the leftists because it seems clear the Rebulicans want less and smaller goverment while the Dems want a nanny state where the government takes care of you from craddle to grave but first they over tax people to pull that off.
Its the same old story. The Dems want to micromanage the public because they think they know what's better for us than we do. I hate any politician who tries to legislate behavior that should be personal choice. I.E.: what drinks I buy, what food I eat, If I buy a gun or not. Its not their job to legislate personal freedom. Let people make choices for themselves. As long as it is not breaking any laws, let it be. Stop tring to fix something that ain't broke. It embarasses me that I am a Democrat. But, just because I am a Democrat, does not mean I vote straight Dem. I vote for who I think will do the best job.
Fletch I am friends with many union workers who are free thinkers, in fact many of them my guess is you would not even know were in a union. My wife's been one for 12 years, she's never been to a meeting. Also my fellow coach owns his own business, works countless hours as our travel teams admin. He dedicated a lot of his time and money to those kids. One more thing he's a committee man on UAW for a Chrysler plant. Flip side owners of companies are just people too, when folks meet them my bet is they would not even know. They face the same struggle we all do.
I don't really think you understood the point of both of my posts within this thread.. which was.. 'it works both ways because each party abuses and neglects the people'. I mean.. let's dissect your last paragraph above with one word change. Tell me this. Why can't Republicans take the middle and let their constituents think for themselves? I have been on the receiving end of their propaganda and can assure you that a lot of it was not just misleading and inaccurate, but was pure fiction. Congressional records are public, it took very little effort to find the truth and disprove some of their dribble. Unfortunately, too many of thier members are too lazy to find the truth, and too quick to believe the brain washing. Why does the Republican party feel the need to do that? What are they afraid of? The truth? See.. it works both ways.. and let me just add as a long time history buff.. the better party at propaganda is NOT the one with the donkey but the one that's "Grand and old". Just ask Thomas Jefferson.
There's a simple solution to unions/corporations working towards electing people that will promote their agendas. It's called campaign finance reform, and we need it in a bad way. I just don't believe we should think of a candidate as successful just because of how much money can be raised on their behalf. Just ridiculous, and has absolutely no bearing on what type of representative of the people that candidate will be. To me, it is an indictment of our entire political system, as it leaves elected officials beholden to non-government groups. I say all federal election campaign's should be funded by a campaign fund that is part of the budget. Each candidate gets equal an amount of dollars to spend towards their re-election, and nothing more. They would not even be eligible to take donations from outside sources. Then we just need Congressional term limits, and our government could work towards building a better America. Until then, the "people" will continue to be screwed over.
excellent post germ!!!! bloodcrick, i'm IBEW Local 725.I did not vote for the current "leader" last time, nor will i this time. all union members evidently aren't the sheep that some have portrayed. also the small shop that i am employed at has about 14 year round employees. the customers have the right to hire any one they so desire to get the job done and yet on certain jobs ,there will be as many as 160 employees working for our company. guess the customers must like the work ethic maybe? lastly I was contracted out to a company for 6 1/2 years. I was the only union member in the entire company and they employed at that time between120-130 people on all shifts.then they started a plant in mexico, then a plant in china. today ,there are 12 people working and it sure as hell wasn't the unions fault!!!!! I would guess that GREED cuts both ways.
another execellent post, but I don't think I can hold my breath long enough for that to happen. also agree with germ again, so i'm heading for mich. to see my sis!
I think we all know it's not going to happen as long as the government can maintain a status quo. It's probably going to take something major like a revolt, or boycott from the majority to bring about this change.
Again you have made a poor assumption. I FULLY understood your point. I dont have to agree or support it, but I fully understand it. Hope you can start to understand my point. Maybe this will help. Here is the difference. The unions are collecting dues from their members under a veiled pretense. A huge percentage of those dues are used for very liberal agendas and propoganda. If some of the members support the conservative party, they are just being taken advantage of. They have no voice in how their dues are spent. If you want to support a conservative agenda, you volutarily donate your funds to the cause. You dont pay dues. There is no membership required to support a conservative agenda. I may understand your confusion since you seem to think the country still operates the same as it did in the days of Thomas Jefferson. You may want to put down the history book and catch up on more recent events. Should I base my opinion of todays Democratic party on the number of Illinois Governors that are or have served time in prison? That is a little more recent history.
Dude you know I like your post,,,your my bud! Sorry If'n I didnt mention it,,,hugs?? after reading yours again, yopu could lable me a free thinker to
I just can't figure you people out.....Tom Cruise is union ( Screen Actors Guild ) and everyone likes him!
No we don't. He's a short little sleezeball who happens to have been given some good flicks to star in.
I'm not sure you have a point. You understand that both parties toss propaganda but its okay for the GOP because its not forced dues? Seems like a very invalid argument. And you're wrong about no money required to support a conservative agenda.. you see.. there are many clubs and societies that exist in this world where to get in you have to pay the piper.. many are elite.. for example the "New American Federalist" society which former vice-president **** Cheney was president of... and ya.. they are for the GOP. And the Thomas Jefferson remark was clearly over your head.. its a joust at the GOP who often claim Jefferson as their founding father and use him in conservative rhetoric.. while in fact.. he would be a democrat if alive today (if had to choose ONLY between the two parties). I'm sorry my humor often involves intellectual references. Oh.. and Illinois governor's going to prison.. ya we had GOPers who did too. GOP Gov. Ryan is still serving time... but that has nothing to do with our discussion. It seems you threw it in to prove a point.. well egg on your face since you didn't. I care not for either party.. neither represents me because I'm not big business.. and neither is innocent of placing our constitution in exile.. the only difference is I don't turn the cheek because I agree with one party a bit more than the other and I actually know facts.
You assume again. Remember what happens when you assume....... Are those same clubs and "societies" required for employment? NO. They are completely voluntary. The same as putting money in the coffers of any church you may choose to attend. Again, you missed it. Does that mean you have egg on your face? I am wasting my time as your viewpoint has fogged any ability you might have to intelligently and openly debate or discuss any topic that has politics involved. Apparently the Thomas Jefferson joust (which I got..) was okay, but potshots at Democrats is not, typical. The point I made was quite clear to many. One man does not make a party or ideal. Both men and ideals change with time and circumstance. Knowing facts can be useful, providing you understand them. Thats where a lot of folks stumble. I will not respond again as my points and communication skills seem too convoluted to suit your liking and wastes our time.
