Those in Cal-ee-forn-ee-a

[DrDetroit]

Havn't seen that as far as I know? I have seen teacher's firemen, and postal workers in Arnolds ad's rebutting the union ad's.

Word. Heard on the radio the other day (so it must be true) that one reason the union is shitting it's pants so badly on 75 is that they did an internal poll of CA gov't employees and roughly 60% said they were voting "Yes" on 75.

That ain't limited to California, my friend. Unions do their damnedest to avoid letting their members know their Beck rights. I tell you what, the amount of money that unions would have available to waste on political camapgins would be greatly reduced if the unions had to first get their members permission to use their dues for political purposes.

We saw this paycheck protection get shot down by Democrats in Congress two years ago...why the Bush administration didn't raise hell and go right over the heads of Democrats and their unions cronies I don't know.

It's disgusting how much money these unions extort from their members to spend on issues that many of their members simply disagree with and their members have no recourse either because the union doesn't tell their members that they have a right to refuse that money going to political causes or the unions take retaliatory action against their members when they do refuse.

[Mikey]

Havn't seen that as far as I know? I have seen teacher's firemen, and postal workers in Arnolds ad's rebutting the union ad's.

Word. Heard on the radio the other day (so it must be true) that one reason the union is shitting it's pants so badly on 75 is that they did an internal poll of CA gov't employees and roughly 60% said they were voting "Yes" on 75.

Not quite true, unless somebody did a different poll.
If I thought the Union rank and file was for the initiative I'd probably vote for it.

Unions face tough fight on Prop. 75

By Laura Kurtzman

Mercury News Sacramento Bureau


SACRAMENTO - As they mobilize to defeat a ballot measure that could sharply limit their political activities, unions are finding one of their toughest jobs is persuading their own members to oppose it.

Proposition 75 on the Nov. 8 special-election ballot would prohibit public-employee unions from using dues for political purposes without written consent from members.

And just like the last time this issue was put to a popular vote, many union members support the measure on its face, seeing it as an issue of basic fairness.

``I think it's an excellent idea,'' said David Bennett, a 39-year-old carpenter from Gilroy, who said he doesn't pay attention to the information his union sends him. ``You should know where your money is going.''

A poll commissioned by the unions in mid-August, before they began their television ad campaign against the measure, found their members were evenly split over Proposition 75.

Union officials say these numbers will change as they get their message out, but they acknowledge having to work hard: sending organizers to job sites, calling members at home and sending them e-mail, printed mail and DVDs.

``There's a natural reaction -- `sounds logical' -- until you dig down a little deeper,'' said Neil Struthers, CEO of the Building Trades Council of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties.

Linking governor to measure

Union leaders, who consider the proposal an attack on all organized labor, are trying to sway members against the ballot measure by saying it will empower Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed Proposition 75, to cut union benefits. The governor's campaign says that is untrue.

Union campaign workers say linking the governor to the ballot measure is one of the best ways to undermine it.

``My co-workers may not know the exact specifics of 75,'' said Erik Larsen, a neighborhood organizer with the city of San Jose who has been volunteering with the union effort against the measure. ``But Schwarzenegger's got a bad rap.''

Unions say 75 will weaken them while leaving corporations free to spend on political campaigns. They cite numbers from the 2004 federal election showing business interests outspent unions 24 to 1. But in this election, it is the unions that are out-raising Schwarzenegger and his business contributors 2 to 1. Large corporations have publicly shied away from financial backing for the measure, but the state Republican Party has contributed, as has a coalition of wealthy businessmen and anti-tax advocates.

Close race

The union survey by San Francisco pollster David Binder sampled 777 AFL-CIO-affiliated union members. Initially, they split 47 percent in favor of the measure to 46 percent against.

After being told that unions were losing power to corporations and that Proposition 75 was part of the governor's ``attack on union benefits,'' 34 percent favored the measure, while 52 percent opposed it.

Union strategists say Binder's poll does not reflect the views of public-employee unions that are not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, such as the California Teachers Association, which has been fighting the governor over education spending all year.

In a CTA survey of its members from early September, 32 percent supported Proposition 75 and 62 percent opposed it, according to Diane Feldman, a CTA pollster. After giving arguments for and against the measure, she said, support dropped to 18 percent, while opposition rose to 74 percent.

However, with 2 million members statewide, the AFL-CIO dwarfs the CTA, which has 335,000 members. About one in five California voter households has at least one union member.

Privately, union organizers say lack of enthusiasm for the special election, combined with fatigue among union and Democratic volunteers, who have faced an election every year since 2002, is making their job harder.

Majority support

No public polls have come out since the unions began their television ad campaign against Proposition 75 early last month. Those done earlier show that Proposition 75 is the only measure to enjoy majority support in an election that voters are viewing with weary skepticism.

Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, said that six years ago, unions defeated a similar measure, Proposition 226, despite even stronger initial support from its members and from the public at large.

He said the measure ultimately became so controversial that it drove union members to the polls.

``In Proposition 226, we had what we think is the highest percentage-wise turnout in any election,'' he said.

But changing people's minds is time consuming, union organizers say, and they face more voter apathy this year than they did in 1998, when Proposition 226 was part of a regularly scheduled election that featured a contested Democratic primary for governor.

``You really have to engage in conversation with people,'' said Larsen, the city of San Jose worker. ``It's work, I'll tell you that.''

[Variable]

If (according to that poll) 47% of the union rank and file is FOR the measure even after enduring six months of attack ads on primetime tv and radio and while knowing the the union is firmly against the measure, you'd still vote it down? Are you retarded? You know how much pressure there is in the union to do what you're told, conform, etc. 47% is a HUGE number.

[BSmack]

If (according to that poll) 47% of the union rank and file is FOR the measure even after enduring six months of attack ads on primetime tv and radio and while knowing the the union is firmly against the measure, you'd still vote it down? Are you retarded? You know how much pressure there is in the union to do what you're told, conform, etc. 47% is a HUGE number.

Are the ballot boxes still secret?

[Variable]

Like there's such a thing in a union.

[Y2K]

``I think it's an excellent idea,'' said David Bennett, a 39-year-old carpenter from Gilroy, who said he doesn't pay attention to the information his union sends him. ``You should know where your money is going.''

Can you imagine the gall of this guy? I mean if the Unions put those mega millions towards his benefit plans and not to some ad agency, TV or radio station, mass mailer and the USPS ect. he's thinking he might actually get something quite substantial in return for his Union Dues.

What an idiot.

[BSmack]

Like there's such a thing in a union.

This isn't a union election.

[BSmack]

``I think it's an excellent idea,'' said David Bennett, a 39-year-old carpenter from Gilroy, who said he doesn't pay attention to the information his union sends him. ``You should know where your money is going.''

Can you imagine the gall of this guy? I mean if the Unions put those mega millions towards his benefit plans and not to some ad agency, TV or radio station, mass mailer and the USPS ect. he's thinking he might actually get something quite substantial in return for his Union Dues.

What an idiot.

Wow, a blue collar guy who can afford to live in Gilroy. Who woulda thunk those evil unions were so bad. :roll:

[Y2K]

I'm sure with all the support he's getting from his union he'll be "moving on up" to a Penthouse Apt in Hollister soon enough.

[Variable]

Gilroy is in the sticks and the entire city smells like garlic. It ain't exactly Beverly Hills North.

[Mikey]

If (according to that poll) 47% of the union rank and file is FOR the measure even after enduring six months of attack ads on primetime tv and radio and while knowing the the union is firmly against the measure, you'd still vote it down? Are you retarded? You know how much pressure there is in the union to do what you're told, conform, etc. 47% is a HUGE number.

And they're not seeing any attack ads from the other side?
I see that ad with the supposed teacher, fireman, whatever, etc. etc. in favor of the initiative about 10 times a night. I can't recall seeing even 1/10th as many against the initiative.

Take off your blinders.

[ChargerMike]

Havn't seen that as far as I know? I have seen teacher's firemen, and postal workers in Arnolds ad's rebutting the union ad's.

Word. Heard on the radio the other day (so it must be true) that one reason the union is shitting it's pants so badly on 75 is that they did an internal poll of CA gov't employees and roughly 60% said they were voting "Yes" on 75.

Oh yea! Well I heard that Prop 75 has the Dems so worried that Barbara Boxer has dispensed with her human form and taken her true form as the Antichrist.

Barbarba Boxer in human form....now that's what I call taking license to the edge.

Mod's?

[ChargerMike]

If (according to that poll) 47% of the union rank and file is FOR the measure even after enduring six months of attack ads on primetime tv and radio and while knowing the the union is firmly against the measure, you'd still vote it down? Are you retarded? You know how much pressure there is in the union to do what you're told, conform, etc. 47% is a HUGE number.

And they're not seeing any attack ads from the other side?
I see that ad with the supposed teacher, fireman, whatever, etc. etc. in favor of the initiative about 10 times a night. I can't recall seeing even 1/10th as many against the initiative.

Take off your blinders.

Then you should well know they are NOT attack ad's...just honest statements from teachers, firemen, and whatever speaking their opinion. Those ad's say not one word demeaning the other side...

On the other hand, the ad's from the unions are vicious in their attacks on Arnold...BTW, many of the statements in thoise ad's have been proven false.

Nice try Mikey

[Mikey]

If (according to that poll) 47% of the union rank and file is FOR the measure even after enduring six months of attack ads on primetime tv and radio and while knowing the the union is firmly against the measure, you'd still vote it down? Are you retarded? You know how much pressure there is in the union to do what you're told, conform, etc. 47% is a HUGE number.

And they're not seeing any attack ads from the other side?
I see that ad with the supposed teacher, fireman, whatever, etc. etc. in favor of the initiative about 10 times a night. I can't recall seeing even 1/10th as many against the initiative.

Take off your blinders.

Then you should well know they are NOT attack ad's...just honest statements from teachers, firemen, and whatever speaking their opinion. Those ad's say not one word demeaning the other side...

Ahhhh....

Now there's the key words. You believe that. I don't.
If you'd take a few minutes to see who's actually behind these initiatives you'd realize that it's bullshit.

[ChargerMike]

And they're not seeing any attack ads from the other side?
I see that ad with the supposed teacher, fireman, whatever, etc. etc. in favor of the initiative about 10 times a night. I can't recall seeing even 1/10th as many against the initiative.

Take off your blinders.

Then you should well know they are NOT attack ad's...just honest statements from teachers, firemen, and whatever speaking their opinion. Those ad's say not one word demeaning the other side...

Ahhhh....

Now there's the key words. You believe that. I don't.
If you'd take a few minutes to see who's actually behind these initiatives you'd realize that it's bullshit.

Alright touche'

A poor chioce of word's...sans the "honest statements" my point was that the Union ad's are full of negative and pointed attacks on Arnold, where the rebuttal ad's don't go there.

[DrDetroit]

If you'd take a few minutes to see who's actually behind these initiatives you'd realize that it's bullshit.

Mikey, do you think all of these propositions are bullshit?

And what does it matter who supports the initiatives or otherwise? Do you rely on the support/oppose rosters to tell you whether to vote for a proposition or not?

[Mikey]

CM, the Governator is the main backer and impetus behind these bills, and he's pushing them as part of his "reform" agenda. I think that, since he is so out front on each of them and attached his name and political clout so closely to them, it's perfectly legitimate for the opponents to question his motives and sincerity.

DrD, the list backers of an initiative is by no means the only thing I look at. But it's pretty telling, especially on an initiative like Prop 75, which I think is more of a stealth attempt by certain conservative and big business groups to undermine the state Democratic Party's base than it is to "protect" the Union members.

And I'm not talking only about the the groups that support an initiative, but the major donors of cash for pushing the advertising.

Major donors backing the measure

Robin P. Arkley II, owner of a real estate and loan company in Eureka; California Republican Party; investment banker Frank Baxter, who helped found a conservative political action committee; A. Jerrold Perenchio; homebuilder William Lyon; Small Business Political Action Committee (contributors include mortgage company Ameriquest Capital, late Wal-Mart heir John Walton, California Business Properties Assn.)

Do you really think that William Lyon, Ameriquest Mortgage ("small business" my ass), John Walton, etc. give a flying fuck about "paycheck protection"?

Give me a fucking break. :roll:

I haven't decided on all of the initiatives yet and won't approve or disapprove as a bloc, unlike the seeming majority around here that are either "yeah, yeah, all of them, yeah dude" or vice versa.

73 - No.
74 - I'm not sure but leaning toward yes.
75 - No.
76 - No.
77 - Flawed but something needs to be done. Leaning toward yes.
78 - No.
79 - Yes.
80 - Undecided, leaning toward yes.

[Y2K]

So what you're saying is Mikey is that a state that had become completely unfriendly to business both big and small, whose employment opportunity for future generations of Californians is growing at too slow a pace to create revenue to support a massive State Government based on Legislators without any concern for controlling itself, it's employee's and their Unions, or drafting extremeist Laws without any concern for the sake of it's citizens because they can't write a campaign check as big as a Union Boss or Special Intrrest was acceptable. Grey Davis felt the same and the people tossed him out on his ass and come to the conclusion changes need to be made. The gravytrain is derailing and it's about damn time.

[Mikey]

So what you're saying is Mikey is that a state that had become completely unfriendly to business both big and small, whose employment opportunity for future generations of Californians is growing at too slow a pace to create revenue to support a massive State Government based on Legislators without any concern for controlling itself, it's employee's and their Unions, or drafting extremeist Laws without any concern for the sake of it's citizens because they can't write a campaign check as big as Ameriquest, John Walton and numerous other out of state Big Business or other Special Intrrest was acceptable. Grey Davis felt the same and the people tossed him out on his ass and come to the conclusion changes need to be made. The gravytrain is rolling down a different track now and it's about damn time.

FTFY and no, that's not what I'm saying.

And I'm not saying that I'm satisfied with the status quo, either. But a lot of these so-called "reforms" are nothing but attempts by big money special interests, under the guise of "reform", to further enrich themselves. If you can't see that then you're as blind as the rest of them.

[ChargerMike]

So what you're saying is Mikey is that a state that had become completely unfriendly to business both big and small, whose employment opportunity for future generations of Californians is growing at too slow a pace to create revenue to support a massive State Government based on Legislators without any concern for controlling itself, it's employee's and their Unions, or drafting extremeist Laws without any concern for the sake of it's citizens because they can't write a campaign check as big as a Union Boss or Special Intrrest was acceptable. Grey Davis felt the same and the people tossed him out on his ass and come to the conclusion changes need to be made. The gravytrain is derailing and it's about damn time.

RACK that!

CM, the Governator is the main backer and impetus behind these bills, and he's pushing them as part of his "reform" agenda. I think that, since he is so out front on each of them and attached his name and political clout so closely to them, it's perfectly legitimate for the opponents to question his motives and sincerity.

Mikey, the people (in a Blue state) through a Democratic tax and spend, groveling, Union sack licking POS who ran our state into oblivion, out on his ass.

Arnold was elected because he promised to CHANGE things. He doesn't moisten his finger and stick it in the air, nor does he give a flying rats ass about the bureaucracy. Yes, he's trying to take POWER away fron the almighty unions and let the PEOPLE make the choices as to where their dues are spent. (now there's a concept). Of course the status quo is terrified and have their shorts so far up their ass it's choking them.

Damn, you live in the state Mikey, you sayin the past 10 years are what you want for the state?

[trev]

RACK Y2K, he nailed it.

Rack all those smart enough to vote for the props.

73 no
74 yes
75 yes
76 yes
77 yes
78 yes
79 no
80 no

And rack HH for understanding.

[Diego in Seattle]

DrDunce;
I'll start worrying about unions providing information to their members on their Beck rights as soon as Wal-Fart starts providing their "associates" information on their rights to unionize.

[BSmack]

Gilroy is in the sticks and the entire city smells like garlic. It ain't exactly Beverly Hills North.

Maybe not. But I just did a search of real estste in Gilroy and the cheapest house on the market there is going for 325,000. The median appears to be in the 500k range or a bit higher. If he can afford to live in that pricey a neighborhood, he sure as hell ain't poor.

[ChargerMike]

^^^^^^

Gilroy CALIFORNIA??

It's the freekin Garlic capitol of the world....A bunch of farms and and not much else. South of San Jose and Silicon Valley. I just went through there last week and didn't see anything but roadside shacks where they sell everything from garlic shakes to garlic toothpaste.

If there were any 3-5 hundred thousand dollar houses there they must come with huge acerage. Garlic and illegals...err pickers..that's all I sawr.

[BSmack]

^^^^^^

Gilroy CALIFORNIA??

It's the freekin Garlic capitol of the world....A bunch of farms and and not much else. South of San Jose and Silicon Valley. I just went through there last week and didn't see anything but roadside shacks where they sell everything from garlic shakes to garlic toothpaste.

If there were any 3-5 hundred thousand dollar houses there they must come with huge acerage. Garlic and illegals...err pickers..that's all I sawr.

Look for yourself. Maybe ChargerOld's eye for good real estate is starting to wane. I mean what's next? A 3 bedroom crackhouse in Rochester? ;)

[Y2K]

No 3 to 5 hundy is about right. It only shows how desperate the Bay Area peeps are to keep their commute to 1 to 2 hours for the 30 miles into San Jose so they can make all that "big money." A POS dwelling in San Jose is 4 to 5 hundred grand so living in Gilroy or Hollister with all the illegals and reeking of garlic 24/7 will cost ya a solid $2000 a month for a nicely painted shack with indoor plumbing. :P

[Luther]

And if they don't like it down there, then they pack their VW vans with the tie-dyed drapes and the Cheech and Chong insense, and move into Oregon.

Remember when I did that thread on the Oregon coast trip a week or so ago? I had gone to the Heceta Head Lighthouse...but what I didn't mention was my observation from the parking lot.

This is a day use park. One of those "Pay on the honor scale." You pull in, and park...and there is the beach if you want or you can take the 1/2 mile hike up the hill to the lighthouse. The sign clearly states that the park is day use, and the fee is $3.

I paid. Got a printed out ticket that you slap on your dashboard to show that you paid. After I paid, I poured myself some joe from my thermos and had a bite or two from my packed lunch. Here is what I observed...:

Everybody who arrived and only used the beach, nobody paid a fookin' dime.*

*most probably figured that the day use fee probably was for the people going up to the lighthouse.

I started watching numerous people pulling in next to me in their cars. Four cars from California pulled in, and then they stood and read the sign about "Honor" blah blah. They then looked at each other, then looked around, and then just walked up the hill toward the lighthouse.

Out of 3 cars from Canada, 2 of them paid. Rack.

One car from Idaho, and she paid without even looking around.

Oregon cars...4 showed up, and 3 paid. The one that didn't trailed a hemp smell a good 75 yards up the hill.

What the fook, Cal-e-forn-ya?

Rip City

[BSmack]

No 3 to 5 hundy is about right. It only shows how desperate the Bay Area peeps are to keep their commute to 1 to 2 hours for the 30 miles into San Jose so they can make all that "big money." A POS dwelling in San Jose is 4 to 5 hundred grand so living in Gilroy or Hollister with all the illegals and reeking of garlic 24/7 will cost ya a solid $2000 a month for a nicely painted shack with indoor plumbing. :P

Here's an idea how fucked up real estate is in California. My stepbrother lived in Gilroy about 10 years ago. Bought a 1000 or so square foot 2 bedroom place for 200k when he rolled into town. 3 years later he got the itch to move on. Sold his place for 150k profit and went househunting in the ATL. This was under the old tax regs, so he had to reinvest all the profit he made or pay tax. Which led the the absurdity of a single guy buying a 6 bedroom 4000 square foot house in the ATL.

I'll give the Mikes a clue, he ain't no union carpenter.

[Variable]

So what you're saying is Mikey is that a state that had become completely unfriendly to business both big and small, whose employment opportunity for future generations of Californians is growing at too slow a pace to create revenue to support a massive State Government based on Legislators without any concern for controlling itself, it's employee's and their Unions, or drafting extremeist Laws without any concern for the sake of it's citizens because they can't write a campaign check as big as Ameriquest, John Walton and numerous other out of state Big Business or other Special Intrrest was acceptable. Grey Davis felt the same and the people tossed him out on his ass and come to the conclusion changes need to be made. The gravytrain is rolling down a different track now and it's about damn time.

FTFY and no, that's not what I'm saying.

And I'm not saying that I'm satisfied with the status quo, either. But a lot of these so-called "reforms" are nothing but attempts by big money special interests, under the guise of "reform", to further enrich themselves. If you can't see that then you're as blind as the rest of them.

Come on, Mikey! There's special interests behind EVERY propostion because someone has to pay for the ad time. Of course some of those groups will be those that you or I don't care for, because we know they're only backing it to get rich off of it. But that doesn't mean that the overall proposition isn't sound and of great benefit to the state.

CA is so tied down by union money that it's killing this state. They control EVERYTHING. Add to that the fact that they're willing to spend themselves into bankruptcy to enforce their agenda and something has to be done to try to legitimately rein them in. You ultra-lefties always complain that big corporations like Halliburton hold too much leverage with the Bush Administration, yet apparently don't mind that the unions hold an even stronger position in CA that is bought and paid for? I think I know the answer to that already...

I don't think that 75 is the complete answer. I think there should be another proposition that states that corporations cannot use company money for campaign causes without first getting the assent of the shareholders. Not only will it create a level playing field in American politics, but it will rein in even more special interest spending.

John Kerry was in SoCal speaking out against Prop 75 a few weeks ago. He said that it's not right to have a Prop limiting union money without one that also limits private corporation money, and I agree. The problem is, when that bill came up before the US Senate, he voted it down. <---Insert flip-flop reset here.

I also don't get why you're down on 76. That's probably the most important measure on the ballot. The fact that both the Republican AND Democrats currently in Sacramento are against it tells you all you need to know. It's people vs. politicians on that one. Us against them. 153 elections in the legislature and senate last year and ZERO seats changed party hands? The system is rigged, bigtime.

[BSmack]

I don't think that 75 is the complete answer. I think there should be another proposition that states that corporations cannot use company money for campaign causes without first getting the assent of the shareholders. Not only will it create a level playing field in American politics, but it will rein in even more special interest spending.

You're a funny guy. You think if you vote for Prop 75 that sometime down the line, once the unions have been busted, that Arnie will propse a bill limiting corporate power?

Do I have to tell you about the tooth fairy too?

[Variable]

I don't think that 75 is the complete answer. I think there should be another proposition that states that corporations cannot use company money for campaign causes without first getting the assent of the shareholders. Not only will it create a level playing field in American politics, but it will rein in even more special interest spending.

You're a funny guy. You think if you vote for Prop 75 that sometime down the line, once the unions have been busted, that Arnie will propse a bill limiting corporate power?

Do I have to tell you about the tooth fairy too?

Of course Arnold won't propose that, but that's just stating the obvious. CA doesn't have a problem with corporate abuse of shareholder dollars to manipulate politicians, it has a problem with union abuse of member dues. Therefore obviously the latter would take precedence over the former.

Nobody's saying the unions shouldn't have a voice, but what they're doing in CA is crazy. And again, no one's trying to bust the unions here. All the proposition does is change the system from "Opt out" to "Opt in." If the union's cause is so worthy of support, I'm sure they'll have no problem getting the same amount of funds from union members, right?<---Wink, wink, nudge, nudge

Don't worry, word is that the democrats are currently drafting a propostion for the next election that will do the same thing to corporations.

[BSmack]

Of course Arnold won't propose that, but that's just stating the obvious. CA doesn't have a problem with corporate abuse of shareholder dollars to manipulate politicians, it has a problem with union abuse of member dues. Therefore obviously the latter would take precedence over the former.

Have you already forgotten your 2001 electric bills?

Enjoy the 2005 World Series at Enron Field.

History will repeat itself.

[smackaholic]

Not familiar with California's specific Prison Guard situation, but, I suspect ti is like CT.

Our prison guards make damn good money. And they have a killer retirement package. All this for a yob that doesn't have much in the way of educational requirements. Sounds nice, don't it?

There is one little problem. Unlike teaching, prison guard duty is not something someone does because they love it. It is a shitty fukking yob and a dangerous one too. They make good money, but, IMO, they earn it.

Teachers on the other hand, have a job they love, for the most part. They also have the summer off.

[Variable]

Of course Arnold won't propose that, but that's just stating the obvious. CA doesn't have a problem with corporate abuse of shareholder dollars to manipulate politicians, it has a problem with union abuse of member dues. Therefore obviously the latter would take precedence over the former.

Have you already forgotten your 2001 electric bills?

Enjoy the 2005 World Series at Enron Field.

History will repeat itself.

Ah, the time-tested BSmack tactic of pointing out one instance in time and pretending that that's the rule. :roll: Nice try, Slappy. Then again, maybe you were trying to point out how easily our Democrats can be bought off by special interests. If so, well done!

CA is a union-run red state. Your inability to see or admit the obvious doesn't change reality.

[BSmack]

Of course Arnold won't propose that, but that's just stating the obvious. CA doesn't have a problem with corporate abuse of shareholder dollars to manipulate politicians, it has a problem with union abuse of member dues. Therefore obviously the latter would take precedence over the former.

Have you already forgotten your 2001 electric bills?

Enjoy the 2005 World Series at Enron Field.

History will repeat itself.

Ah, the time-tested BSmack tactic of pointing out one instance in time and pretending that that's the rule. :roll: Nice try, Slappy. Then again, maybe you were trying to point out how easily our Democrats can be bought off by special interests. If so, well done!

CA is a union-run red state. Your inability to see or admit the obvious doesn't change reality.

One instance in time? If that was the ONLY time corporations pilfered from your wallets in California that would have been enough. But you and I know damn well it wasn't.

Yea, that's why Ahnold is begging Bush to stay the hell away from Cali until after the election. Its because Cali is a red state.

[Y2K]

I'll give the Mikes a clue, he ain't no union carpenter.

Journeyman Union Carpenters in Northern California start at $32.00 an hour and make upwards to 40 on state and Federal Projects. Now what's that about a clue?

[BSmack]

I'll give the Mikes a clue, he ain't no union carpenter.

Journeyman Union Carpenters in Northern California start at $32.00 an hour and make upwards to 40 on state and Federal Projects. Now what's that about a clue?

I'd say that's fair.

How much do you pay your guys?

[Diogenes]

Of course the Electrical problems were caused by the Democratic Legislature preventing the building of power plants for 20+ years in a energy importing state.

Said Dems being kept in power by the Unions.

[BSmack]

Of course the Electrical problems were caused by the Democratic Legislature preventing the building of power plants for 20+ years in a energy importing state.

Said Dems being kept in power by the Unions.

Yea, and it had nothing to do with the horrible deregulation scheme foisted on the state by politicans bought and paid for by energy interests.

:roll:

[XXXL]

73 no
74 no
75 no
76 no
77 no
78 no
79 yes
80 yes

Take that Girly man :)