[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254827] A far harder issue is determining what that should be: newspapers, unions, and groups like the Federation of American Scientists are companies too, and I'm loathe to allow Congress to restrict their 'free speech' rights on a whim. I'm convinced that there is a solution .[/QUOTE]

Don't allow ANY outside funding toward election campaigns.

Give every candidate a fixed (and equal!) amount of money out of public
tax money.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;254891]Don't allow ANY outside funding toward election campaigns.

Give every candidate a fixed (and equal!) amount of money out of public
tax money.[/QUOTE]I can accept the concept that corporations are entities that may be entitled to rights like freedom of speech and the corresponding ability to make a political contribution. What I don't accept is that a corporation has more standing to contribute than any other individual. After all, each and every person in the corporation has not ceded their individual rights to contribute and the right of a corporation to contribute does not scale by size so the reasonable thing in my opinion is to limit a corporation's contributions to the maximum allowed to individuals.

I'm curious as to why Wisconsin is such a lightning rod on this issue. There are states without any collective bargaining rights (Wisconsin still has some), yet I don't see people protesting over it. Ohio just rescinded collective bargaining rights and IIRC is even more draconian than what happened here, yet protesting there was minimal. I suspect it has to do with the University of Wisconsin, which is near the capital. On TV I've noticed that a large percentage of protesters appear to be students.

I personally think that a number of the Democrats at the national level are hypocrites. If Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, and Barack Obama think that collective bargaining is such a great thing, why didn't they fight for it at the federal level after the Democrats were swept into office in 2008?

I have been listening to some of the protesters comments. What you hear shows how much many of them don't even understand what was in the bill. To hear references to Nazi Germany or China is crazy. I don't recall hearing any governors in right to work states being called Nazis. I don't see working conditions in other states that resemble those in China (except those who use illegal immigrants).

I suspect that if the bill passes muster (there are legal challenges) that in two years that people will realize that the sky didn't fall, that the world didn't end, and that things really didn't change that much.

And so it will proceed, small negative change by small negative change, until our grandchildren are asking if Grandpa really once knew someone who owned his own house, and if there was really a time that you didn't work on Saturdays.

[QUOTE=rogue;254903]On TV I've noticed that a large percentage of protesters appear to be students.[/QUOTE]

Dirty hippies! How dare they?

Free speech. Invigorating, isn't it? You don't have to own property or be male to vote, and there's no poll tax! Smells like freedom. Sorry about that: the riff-raff can have opinions, too.

If corporate entities can now speak anonymously with a million-watt megaphone thanks to Citizens United, I have no problem with some ill-informed students trekking up one of the eight streets to the Capitol.

[QUOTE]I personally think that a number of the Democrats at the national level are hypocrites. If Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, and Barack Obama think that collective bargaining is such a great thing, why didn't they fight for it at the federal level after the Democrats were swept into office in 2008?[/QUOTE]

Indeed: hypocrites. I dislike all three.

I have another question: if killing an embryo is flat-out murder, why don't Republicans ban it everywhere and jail the mother as well as the doctor, and why don't they ban in-vitro fertilization, since each successful pregnancy results in several embryos being frozen and ultimately discarded?

If St. Reagan is beatific in the eyes of all on heaven and earth, why is raising taxes, which he did several times, described as wicked? Why was Clinton's moving the top marginal rate from Reagan's 38.5% to a whopping 39.6% deemed flagitious in the extreme by Republicans one and all?

If the Wisconsin Democrats are dirty obstructionist blackguards for fleeing the state to prevent a quorum, why don't Washington Senate Republicans cut down the filibusters from their current rate of 25x the historical norm?

If wealth redistribution is vile and does nothing to help those who receive it, can we cut the federal subsidies to states like Alaska, Iowa, and South Dakota from the coffers of California, New Jersey, and Texas?

If public employee unions are so terrible, why did Governor Walker leave the police and fire unions untouched? Why are the military - public employees the lot of them - given half pay plus free medical care for life, after retiring at 40, whether or not they actually saw combat?

And why did every middle-aged conservative I know of that reached age 18 between 1965 and 1973 without serving in Vietnam, have such a hard-on in support of the 2003 Iraq War?

See how stupid these sorts of arguments sound? "Why doesn't X do Y if it's so great?"

[QUOTE]I suspect that if the bill passes muster (there are legal challenges) that in two years that people will realize that the sky didn't fall, that the world didn't end, and that things really didn't change that much.[/QUOTE]

Then why do it in the first place?

[QUOTE=only_human;254900]I can accept the concept that corporations are entities that may be entitled to rights like freedom of speech and the corresponding ability to make a political contribution. What I don't accept is that a corporation has more standing to contribute than any other individual. After all, each and every person in the corporation has not ceded their individual rights to contribute and the right of a corporation to contribute does not scale by size so the reasonable thing in my opinion is to limit a corporation's contributions to the maximum allowed to individuals.[/QUOTE]

Also reasonable.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;254891]Don't allow ANY outside funding toward election campaigns.

Give every candidate a fixed (and equal!) amount of money out of public
tax money.[/QUOTE]

You'd fund [i]my[/i] electoral campaign as much as Obama's?

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254920]You'd fund [i]my[/i] electoral campaign as much as Obama's?[/QUOTE]

What's the problem? You seem to have more conviction than he does, and analytical skills at least as sound.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]See how stupid these sorts of arguments sound? "Why doesn't X do Y if it's so great?"[/QUOTE]

Most of your arguments sound stupid because they're actually of the form "If X says Y, why does Z not do Y?". I think the arguments you're ridiculing are of the same form...?

Regardless, I'll address some of these.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]If the Wisconsin Democrats are dirty obstructionist blackguards for fleeing the state to prevent a quorum, why don't Washington Senate Republicans cut down the filibusters from their current rate of 25x the historical norm?[/QUOTE]

I assume you're being facetious (unless you're not an American or otherwise don't understand the American legislative system). The party in power always calls the party out of power "obstructionist" for not going along with their plans.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]If wealth redistribution is vile and does nothing to help those who receive it, can we cut the federal subsidies to states like Alaska, Iowa, and South Dakota from the coffers of California, New Jersey, and Texas?[/QUOTE]

I'd love to. Actually, I'd love to change the system of federal spending that benefits the states dramatically, because it's not only corruptible but currently corrupt -- in the sense that it's used strategically, every year, by politicians to reward their supporters and maximize votes. I'm not sure what the best way to do this is -- I've thought of several methods but none are polished.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]If public employee unions are so terrible, why did Governor Walker leave the police and fire unions untouched?[/QUOTE]

Political expediency, one assumes.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]Why are the military - public employees the lot of them - given half pay plus free medical care for life, after retiring at 40, whether or not they actually saw combat?[/QUOTE]

Not sure what the argument is here. Are you arguing that members of the military are overpaid, or that given a level of benefits they should be redistributed differently? Or are you talking not about benefits as such but merely the retirement, compared to other government jobs with early retirement (e.g., police)?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]And why did every middle-aged conservative I know of that reached age 18 between 1965 and 1973 without serving in Vietnam, have such a hard-on in support of the 2003 Iraq War?[/QUOTE]

That seems to speak to your 'friends' more than anything else. I wonder, too, how many individuals you're talking about (sample size) and whether they actually all feel that way.

Put another way: Surely a person with "a hard-on in support of the 2003 Iraq War" would say "right decision" to the question "Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force in Iraq?" According to [url=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm]this Aug. 25-Sept. 6, 2010 poll[/url] (the first one I could find that split out Republicans from others), 68% of Republicans gave that response. So with 95% confidence (Clopper-Pearson interval) I can conclude that you know at most 8 such middle-aged conservatives.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254924]What's the problem? You seem to have more conviction than he does, and analytical skills at least as sound.[/QUOTE]

I try. :blush:

But my question is just one of practicality. There are surely thousands of people who would be happy for the publicity of an election campaign if it was funded for them. Could we realistically fund them all?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]I have another question: if killing an embryo is flat-out murder, why don't Republicans ban it everywhere and jail the mother as well as the doctor, and why don't they ban in-vitro fertilization, since each successful pregnancy results in several embryos being frozen and ultimately discarded?

If St. Reagan is beatific in the eyes of all on heaven and earth, why is raising taxes, which he did several times, described as wicked? Why was Clinton's moving the top marginal rate from Reagan's 38.5% to a whopping 39.6% deemed flagitious in the extreme by Republicans one and all?

If the Wisconsin Democrats are dirty obstructionist blackguards for fleeing the state to prevent a quorum, why don't Washington Senate Republicans cut down the filibusters from their current rate of 25x the historical norm?

If wealth redistribution is vile and does nothing to help those who receive it, can we cut the federal subsidies to states like Alaska, Iowa, and South Dakota from the coffers of California, New Jersey, and Texas?

If public employee unions are so terrible, why did Governor Walker leave the police and fire unions untouched? Why are the military - public employees the lot of them - given half pay plus free medical care for life, after retiring at 40, whether or not they actually saw combat?

And why did every middle-aged conservative I know of that reached age 18 between 1965 and 1973 without serving in Vietnam, have such a hard-on in support of the 2003 Iraq War?

See how stupid these sorts of arguments sound? "Why doesn't X do Y if it's so great?"[/QUOTE]

I can't answer many of your questions, nor do I wish to. From what I understand, Walker's bill did not affect the police and fire unions because he was concerned about walkouts and thus the safety of the capital.

My earlier point (the one to which you responded with the word "thread-jacking") is that I was interested in discussing this one issue. I know of liberals who agree with the change and conservatives who disagree with it. You appear to be interested in provoking me by implying that I am a hard-core conservative. I am equally annoyed that you are polarizing the discussion by inferring things that are not said.

If you choose to be civil, then maybe I will respond to specific inquiries on this issue, but until then I will ignore your rants.

BTW, I am not a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter). The issue of collective bargaining is one of the few that I happen to agree with the Republicans on.