rhaig

If you received all the benefits of the "good work" they did, without having to pay any dues, would you have joined (or is that what you did)? That's exactly what I did. I got a flyer with my newhire packet that described the union and what they'd done in the past few years as well as explaining the dues. I chose at that point to join. a very large gas station chain not far from here has a store that isn't going to that extreme. They are selling gas for a few pennies above cost. They have a very large store on site as well and rely on fuel traffic to drive retail traffic. Retail sales help keep the place in the green. They've been operating this way for a couple of years now. While there isn't a money losing proposition in that deal, they would stand to profit more from gas by raising their prices to the same as everyone else. But they don't because enough people come in and choose to shop their retail selection as well. thank you for your time, but you're telling me what I've already heard. (short version) "wah!! scab is getting access to benefits that my union negotiated!!" I was wondering what was bad about the RTW laws other than this "not fair" mentality. Apparently that's it. -- Rob

http://www.kfyi.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=118695&article=10635547 an interesting use for a t-shirt cannon :) (at least I assume it was something similar to a t-shirt cannon) -- Rob

Ok, so I want to know what is so horrible about right to work laws. I hear ideas about why it weakens unions (they won't have as much money and influence without 100% enrollment). I hear about how it's not-fair that non-members will reap the same benefits of the union without paying dues. For every article on how unions are bad for the local economy or wages, I've seen as many with the opposite viewpoint. I like the idea that people won't be forced to pay dues to an organization they may not want to join. I used to be a union member when I worked for the state of TX. The dues were minimal and they did some good work. I chose to join and pay dues, I was not forced to or pressured to by co-workers. -- Rob

Everyone should note that law enforcement has no constitutional obligation to protect you either. (old news really... just a reminder) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html -- Rob

so had there been a CCW holder who shot this guy down, your post would have been about a "self-proclaimed, untrained rambo who felt the need to take on a gunman and endanger others" hey look!! TROLL! -- Rob

I love the onion. -- Rob

that's what I get for posting pre-coffee. -- Rob

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/12/08/insane_treasury_considers_1_trillion_platinum_coin_to_solve_debt_limit_issue wow... they're actually contemplating this? wow. -- Rob

I am rubber... you are glue! -- Rob

what if he's got a pointed stick? -- Rob

According to your understanding, what is the legal definition of an assault weapon? Whatever the government says it is. so you don't personally have an understanding of what you would like to see removed from the public. That's what I take from that statement in response to my question. -- Rob

donkey? -- Rob

what does it say when pravda publishes an article about the Obama administration repeating the economic policy mistakes of the former Soviet Union? (they use the word communist a bit, but that would be inflammatory) -- Rob

just like I said to the people who called for the impeachment of Bush, and Obama, if there is proof of wrongdoing, make it seen, and get charges filed. Until then, it's BS that drives ad revenue somewhere. -- Rob

Who is "my kind"? A nuclear bomb is an object too, but that doesn't mean that everyone should have one. Humans are imperfect, they're fallible, they screw up, and sometimes they turn just plain evil. BAN HUMANS!!! like hybrid vehicles? but what if he's got a pointed stick? -- Rob

No comprende, señor. He doesn't understand? -- Rob

Why does the phrase 'one trick pony' always make me think of prostitution? "pony" not "donkey" -- Rob

I'd be surprised if he could show me one instance of one being used in a terrorist act on American soil. -- Rob

According to your understanding, what is the legal definition of an assault weapon? (when it occurs to you that you don't know, and that you've just been using the term, feel free to google, cut & paste so you have something you can claim to understand) -- Rob

and the new private security firm has to abide by the TSA policies, standards and practices. All HB80 does is place limits on their actions unless there is probable cause. -- Rob

Fortunately, we have judicial review to keep Congress in check. You seem to think it's only the job of SCOTUS to determine if something is unconstitutional. It's a 3 part system so that each part of the system can abide by the constitution and strike down unconstitutional actions of the others. Lately the Executive and Legislative branches seem to be writing the unconstitutional bits and then it's up to citizens to fight them and get it to the court. In the meantime, damage has been done, and normalcy bias has set in. -- Rob

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB80 (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful; (2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; [or] (3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment; or (4) as part of a determination of whether to grant another person access to a publicly accessible venue or form of transportation, intentionally and without probable cause: (A) touches the anus, breast, buttocks, or sexual organ of the other person, including touching through clothing; (B) removes a child younger than 18 years of age from the physical custody or control of a parent or guardian of the child or a person standing in the stead of a parent or guardian of the child; The "without probably cause" is the part that really needs to be there. -- Rob

That you appear to not understand what is meant by the term state. you do understand that some words have different meanings right? I like the "condition of being" definition of "state" for this discussion. as in a "free state" would imply a "state of being free". Perhaps you hadn't considered alternate meanings of the word. You're a generally intelligent poster, so I'll assume you'd kept the proverbial blinders on to let the forum drama fly. -- Rob

It wouldn't happen if people weren't so ignorant about guns and decided that picking them up and playing with them was a bad idea. Education IS important. So, do you hunt down and confiscate every weapon? Or do you train the ignorant on minimal firearms safety? so which is the easier problem to solve? -- Rob

You mean the "War of Northern Aggression" ?? -- Rob