If she were to mention that GM got the same sort of deal, she would have more credibility. Turning a blind eye to GM suggest that this is nothing but cheap politics.

But, as ZeroHedge notes, allowing Dems to pass unpdaid for tax cuts and spending increases will bring up the Debt Ceiling debate prior to the election. Democrats will have to defend their spending and tax increases right around election time next year. Seems like a losing proposition to me.

Agreed. In my view, however, the best choice would be against getting arrested, given the opportunity.

There are no fools in the discussion, only a person that made foolish choices and now has to live with their consequences. You could debate whether or not the choices that the occupier made were foolish but, failing to do that, which you have, indicates that you are either unwilling or unable to do so. Resorting to name calling just demonstrates the weakness of your arguments.

Yes, karma is a boomerang and you should consider that the next time that you resort to name calling rather than debate.

Again, this person chose to be arrested without having in their pocession the insulin that they now so desperately need. Police seized the property that was left behind, not the property that the people were in pocession of, i.e., if a person had cash on them at the time of arrest, or a passport, or a gym membership card, that would be stored with their personal pocessions until they were released. But, since this person chose not to collect thier valuable prescription prior to arrest, both actions of the person’s own free will (they were given the opportunity to collect their personal items and were given the opportunity to be arrested or not) this person now suffers. This individual is learning that choices have consequences as all adults should. I have no sympathy for a person who does not like having to live with the poor choices that he or she has made.

From Kevin Gosztola’s posting:

Occupiers had been offered an agreement which they turned down. After midnight, they were in Niagara Square without a permit but the city could have continued to negotiate with Occupy Buffalo and chose to carry out an eviction instead.

Also:

Occupiers then expressed interest in going in to remove their personal property and wanted to know if that was possible. An officer said, “I think we can certainly accommodate you who want to remove your personal belongings.” But, the officers would need to inspect each of the tents to be sure there was nothing or no person that would threaten the safety of police.

Looks like, from this first hand account, that Occupiers were given the opportunity to stay, provided they agreed to the city’s demands and that failing that, by their refusal of the deal, that they were given time to collect their personal belongings. Failing to collect one’s needed prescription, given the opportunity to do so, shows a total lack of cognition, deserving of whatever consequences ensue.

The Poster for the event claims that corporations are not people and that money is not political speech. Does anyone see the irony of this type of event being supported by the SEIU? Is a Labor Union a person? Wouldn’t it be more akin to a corporation? Don’t they, the Labor Unions, contribute money to politicians, PACs and political campaigns? Generally they align with Democrats and the Left, but if your going to make a case against money in politics, you should do it without the unions, unless you want people to think that you’re just a useful idiot of the democratic party.

“Present.”

Think of all the layoffs. If a company can only afford to pay 12 people 9$/hour, when they have to pay each person $12/hour, they will only be able to employ 9 people instead of 12. Unless, of cours, it’s a company that makes unicorns…

A company that needs to borrow consistently to pay it’s workers’ wages will eventually be bankrupt. A private corporation can not increase it’s money supply, it can only increase it’s revenues. So, it an increase in revenues leads to $1,200/hour to pay workers, should the company pass the increase on and pay 100 employees $12/hour or should they pay 60 employes $20/hour while 40 get nothing?

“You should really call them “right to work for less” laws, because they diminish the bargaining power of labor, empower management, and lead to wage cuts.”

The pool of wages if finite. So, if there is only $1,000/hour to pay wages, is it better to have 100 workers getting $10/hour or 50 workers getting $20/hour while the remaining 50 workers get nothing?

Seems to me that the cuts for 2012 should be paid for in 2012, not over a 10 year span as the payfors in the later years may never materialize.

Remember, the Bush Tax Cuts, really the Obama Tax Cuts because he signed the last extension, apply to all income groups. If those cuts expire, taxes will increase for all taxpayers and people who did not previouly have any income tax liability will. It’s great to demonize the cut, but at least be honest about it.

I don’t think that any article is complete without the following:

On November 4, 2008, the company announced a fifth delay due to incorrect fastener installation and the Boeing machinists strike, stating that the first test flight would not occur in the fourth quarter of 2008.[65][66]

Which you conveniently left out of your posting.

Supply chain problems would be resolved by the purchasing and taking over of suppliers, such of Vought Aircraft. Labor relation problems are resolved by locating to a non-union location, as Boeing did, or to China. We should be thankful that the jobs stayed in the US. Jackass.

FDR didn’t like the Public Employee Unions either:

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Here is where the ‘attacked Prosser’ notion comes fromt:

According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

Not that this is necessarily a true account, just more details. We’ll see what the investigation turns up…

Try to keep the argument straight, it was never written that Justice Prosser was intimidated, only that Justice Bradley initiated the physical confrontation and that Prosser responded, (i.e., Bradley was the aggressor, whether Prosser found that intimidating or not is not in evidence).

As the old saying for lawyers goes, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts; if you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, pound the table. There seems to be a lot of touble punding in this thread.

Not arguing that size matters, in this case. Simply that whatever the poster was attempting to prove by posting the picture, they failed to do as it does not show Prosser in relation to Bradely. Take from that what you will but the poster was attempting to show that Bradely is smaller than the ‘normal size’ man without any point of reference and without the inclusion of Prosser in the pictrure. You can take a leap of faith and believe what you will, it would seem that you’ve already made up your mind, but the picture does not demonstrate either that Bradley is smaller than a ‘normal size’ more or that Bradeley is either larger or smaller than Prosser.

Your own picture refutes your statement. If both men are ‘normal size’, whatever that means, one is obviously much taller than the other, so, only one could be judged to be ‘normal size’. Further, we have no reference point, in the picture, to judge what normal size would be. And, since Prosser is not in the picture at all, it is meaningless because we don’t know how he compares in size to Justice Bradley which is the most important comparisson, Bradley to Prosser, not Bradley to some ‘normal size’ men who have nothing at all to do with this inciedent.

What is also importatnt to remember, whichever justice ends up leaving, Walker will appoint the replacement who will likely be younger and more conservative than Prosser, and doubly so if Bradley is the one to go.