A war on teachers' rights is a war on teachers.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The courts have decided that Americans have the right to unionize and demand that they be given the right to bargain collectively. It is the law.

Even if sirs does not believe there is such a right, there is indeed such a right.

sirs will never admit that he is wrong

[sirs]

LOL....oh the irony

[Xavier_Onassis]

ironic is you say this AFTER you say "we're done here".

prick.

[sirs]

XO SOP     

[BT]

sirs dodges the question, because sirs knows the answer he gives will show how wrong he is about teachers unions.

Nothing new here. It is what he does, it is who he is.

[sirs]

Only in Bt's mind does sirs dodge questions by actually answering them.  Go figure.  It appears that if Bt doesn't like the answer, or doesn't conform to the answer that's supposed to be provided, that's "dodging". 

Misrepresenting?  Well, I guess that's what Bt does.  And here I thought we had evolved from that tactic.  Bummers

[BT]

I asked if one has a right to donate to political causes. You did not answer that question.

 

However, I'm not assembling with anyone, but myself, but sure, once can donate to a political cause or party.

Deflect. No addressing the right to donate to political causes.

Typical. It is what you do, it is who you are.

[sirs]

God gravy, you're getting as dense as Xo.  I didn't deflect at all.  You asked it it was a right to donate to political causes, I said, "of course".  How the hell is that clear answer to a clear question, a deflection??   

That was a rhetorical question, since I'm not going to play your game of semantics are us.  Just hilighting for all to see how your question was answered, you just didn't like it, so you had to erroneously claim it a dodge, thus misrpresenting what I had said. 

It's sadly what you choose to do...it's apparently who you are.  Bummers

[Christians4LessGvt]

The courts have decided that Americans have the right to unionize and demand that they be given the right to bargain collectively. It is the law.

But assholes like you want to make it mandatory for Americans to be in Union if their shop is Union.

I agree Americans have the right to join a Union if they so choose,
but control freaks like you want to compel people to not be able to
choose individually if they want to be in a Union.

It's called control freakism vs freedom
(ya know Freedom that's not allowed on a license plate)

[BT]

Where in the constitution is the right to donate to political causes enumerated?

[sirs]

The courts have decided that Americans have the right to unionize and demand that they be given the right to bargain collectively. It is the law.

But assholes like you want to make it mandatory for Americans to be in Union if their shop is Union.

I agree Americans have the right to join a Union if they so choose,
but control freaks like you want to compel people to not be able to
choose individually if they want to be in a Union.

It's called control freakism vs freedom
(ya know Freedom that's not allowed on a license plate)

BINGO.  Having a right to join a union, is not the same as a "right to a Union"  Couldn't have said it better, C     

 

[sirs]

error/computer glitch

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, like someone is gonna force you to join Masseurs Local 4567.

[BT]

BINGO.  Having a right to join a union, is not the same as a "right to a Union"  Couldn't have said it better, C     

That makes absolutely no sense at all. How can one have the right to join an organization that in and of itself is not protected by that same right?

That's like saying you have the right to own a firearm, but firearms in and of themselves are illegal and unconstitutional.

You have the right to join a church but community worship is illegal and unconstitutional.

Your logic is suspect to say the least.

[sirs]

Because the right to do something (join) does not equate to a right for for something to exist (a supposed right to a union).  It's an apples/oranges kinda thing.  Not to mention something legal also doesn't automatically equate to "a right", which debunks the nonsense about some supposed illegal community worship        See what I mean about misrepresenting