Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Wisconsin GOP senators won four of six recall elections, which means they will maintain majority control in the state Senate.

A RECALL OF MARTINEZ AND LONGORIA IS THE ONLY MESSAGE "WE THE PEOPLE" NEED SEND AT THIS POINT

BUT FIRST: BISD: I have no idea what happened at last nights meeting. What I do know is indictments will be coming down in 2012. The new BISD Board will able to sue anyone the current majority conspired with and get back the money and then some. All we can do is wait - jail time is coming for some of the BISD Trustees. It is standard, indictments take 3-5 years. Be patient - justice is coming.

RECALL

Yesterday in Wisconsin over the union busting 2 of 6 targeted Republican state Senators were recalled. Not perfect, but it was something. Someone posted that under the rules we need to wait 6 months after the last swearing in of any commission the target of the recall. That would be November. This is not bad. It could take until November to put everything into place for a successful recall campaign. The unions need to be able to organize and commit their membership to walking the community for the signatures.

There is no doubt in my mind if the unions put their mind to it they will succeed in getting the signatures. On the actual recall I am 100% certain they will succeed as to Longoria. I admit Martinez could be a long shot, but merely putting him through the process will cause major damage. Further with the loss of Longoria he will become a lame duck mayor.

The message will have been sent to Gowen. The organization will be in place to insure she is sent packing in May 2013.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR UNION BUSTING

If the unions fail to organize a recall then they deserve to have their unions destroyed. This is their battle. They must lead. But if they do lead, the BV will certainly be there helping them win the battle.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

All Unions SUCK, TENURE SUCKS, MINIMUM WAGE SUCKS. When you DO NOT pay employees on the basis of MERIT, you kill competitiveness and the true value each individual employee bring the work place.

Back in the days when I was an "employee," many jobs I approach the employers to hire me for my abilities, my performance for FREE for a day or two. 99% of the time I would get the job. Why because i do the best i can do and then some. Currently I'm now the "employer" and my staff MUST BE PRODUCERS or they don't work for me. This creates a WIN WIN situation because, #1 low turn over, #2 Those that have move on obtain better jobs or entrepreneurs themselves, #3 a profitable business.
My personal satisfaction is that i played a small part to their road to success.

BobbyWC said...

ah, so now you are a socialist - you do know paying people based on merit is the essence of socialism - while it is capitalism which pays whatever regardless of skills - which is why we pass laws to provide for minimum wage.

I have no problem with the argument that some unions protect the incompetent - we see this especially in teachers unions - but this is the US - they have a right to organize and be represented.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Bobby with all due respect but I think you got it backwards.
FYI check out this explanation:
http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/socialism-vs-capitalism.php "...Wikipedia defines socialism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society. In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx predicts that the proletariats will overthrow the bourgeoisie (which seems to be happening to some degree). The bourgeoisie are upper management and upper class, the white collar workers, while the proletariats are the working class, the blue collar workers. Since the proletariats "do all the work", Marx and other socialists suggest that they should get an equal share of the wealth. A Marxist society would have no private property rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens--"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.

On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

I hope this clarifies the difference between SOCIALISM VS CAPITALISM.

Anonymous said...

Wait till next year that seems to be your only battlecry. Run Bobby Run and see the humiliating defeat you will get.

BobbyWC said...

You are simply wrong - I can find any web page to say what I want - your understanding of Marx is so limited you should not even attempt it.

It is well established that socialism is from each according to his ability to each according to his worth - this is a merit system

capitalism is what the market pays which is not based on merit - it is based on market

marxed based his entire theory on an observation based in the dialect - other than idiots no one disputes the dialectic - you have a given state which in influenced by a new set of events which results in a new state- this is nature - it has been going on for millions of years.

marx never argued against the importance of capitalism - he understood it as an important part of the process - but there comes a point new forces into the economic reality will force change.

It is not disputed that owners work harder than disinterested workers. Under socialism - in simple terms - one group of workers can own a dry factory on one side of town and another group can own a dryer factory on the other side of town.

You want to see everying in terms of the end game and ignore what Marx recognized as a long term process which begins not in ownership but with a change in political socialization and how the people feel about their community and economy. It must come from the people and not party officials

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

It took the FBI three years for an indictment on rape in a prison - why should this be any faster?

Give me an example wherein the FBI indicts over night

In the case of Limas they had enough to indict him but allowed him to remain on the bench even while he carried out his criminal conspiracy

reality matters stupid comments do not

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

and now we are reduced to reliance on WIKIPEDIA for facts!!!!I can't remember the last time I read a dissertation listing Wikipedia as a resource...oh dear, dear, dear. But I've got to say the initial clarification and your rebuttal made for a fun read, thanks to both of you.