Posted on 01/15/2010 10:14:44 AM PST by Bigtigermike
In the latest to come out of D.C.’s backroom health care deals, President Obama yesterday cut a doozy of a deal with labor union bosses. The fed’s health care plan must be so bad that even union bosses had to go to D.C. to say they wanted out. So... to keep their support for a flawed plan they got an exemption to provisions in the deal that others did not. Small business owners, our families running America’s mom & pops, did not get this deal. Ask yourself: why did union bosses get special treatment? And when did our country’s unions get on the wrong track with moves like this that hurt their good members and put them in such a bad light?
Good hard-working, pro-free-market, pro-America union members should join in opposition to their union bosses’ sweetheart deal. Coming from a union background and living in a world with many union memberships among my family and friends, I know that average members will be embarrassed by their bosses’ deal, which basically only delays the heavy tax on their health care plans until 2018 and in the meantime unfairly leaves many fellow Americans in a much less “enviable” position.
Union members don’t want to stick it to non-union colleagues in the private and public sector. Their union leadership is not helping them in the long run, they’re certainly not helping the rest of America, and unfortunately some union bosses are making all union members look bad, selfish, and anti-business with this Big Government backroom deal.
Snark or no snark, I believe it to be true. I didn't realize until today that posting anything other than praise for Sarah was not recommended on FR.
You're missing the point. I don't think it was your debatable criticism of Sarah that caused you trouble. I believe it was your "sometimes she just misses the deeper view" snarky remark that caused you trouble.
Actually the entire damn bill is unconstitutional.
Looks like you missed "the deeper view", Semper.
LOL.
I wish I could agree that everyone understands anything about the Constitution and BoR. Many confuse those writings with those of Marx and Lenin.
Life isn’t fair. That’s not unconstitutional. A law that doesn’t treat everyone equally is so we agree and I don’t doubt that Sarah understands that the way we do. But you (generic, not specific ‘you’) cannot force feed someone. You have to get their interest and their attention. You don’t get that by going over their head and talking down to them. You can’t lecture them. It is a slow process and slower with some audiences than others.
She will continue to make points big and small. She will continue to gain in popularity and will win over some of her early critics. She has the same disarming charm and self depracating humor as Reagan.
I haven’t seen a misstep yet and until I do, I’m going to trust her judgment.
In this thread I think I have typed out my point about five times. Let me type it out again for you.
The thread is about SP's Facebook entry dealing specifically with the union exemption. That provision is clearly a violation of the 14th amendment, because it creates a law that applies to some people and not others.
I was disappointed that Sarah, in her discussion of the union exemption on Facebook, didn't bring it up.
Anyone can say the entire bill is unconstitutional, and they may or may not be right. But this was an opportunity for Sarah to point to a specific part of the bill and compare it with a specific part of the constitution.
I know -- you are probably right about that.
You have to get their interest and their attention.
She definitely has the the country's interest and attention, don't you think? She is gorgeous and humble and has an administrative record that proves she cares for the people and the country.
She is the EF Hutton of politics at the moment, and that is certain to magnify as we get into spring and summer. She has the power to be kingmaker in the midterms.
One of these days I will actually read an article before commenting on it.
Now that I read a paragraph or two, this is directed to union members. They are not doing anything that is unconstitutional so the mention of it wouldn’t really be appropriate or moving. They are, or seem to be, the beneficiary of tough union negotiating for government largess. They haven’t, and likely won’t, give the Constitution a thought so bringing it up in this address serves no purpose. Having them think of how they look to their non union friends and relatives is a stroke of genius.
We know that she knows it’s unconstitutional. As long we know it and she acts based on that knowledge, how she makes the sale is less important.
To use an analogy, if you try to sell me a car based on it’s speed and I’m looking for economy, you won’t make the sale. You have to talk to me about what matters to me. The Constitution matters little if at all. Looking bad to family and friends who are struggling just might
I think they are all too busy bowing at the alter of their perceived 2012 leader — Romney.
No need to type it again. I know exactly what you said. Which is why I said, "actually the entire damn bill is unconstitutional" and "looks like you missed the deeper view".
I really want to believe that is not true. The "union members" are just middle class working people and I have to believe they have some sense of constitutionality. Everyone knows it exists and knows it is about fairness.
Oh! I get it! You were just being a jerk. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Unbelievable.
So when you say that Sarah "misses the deep view" when she doesn't say something is unconstitutional that's okay, but when I say Semper misses the deep view because he didn't say something was unconstitutional, that's not okay.
No you don't get it...either that or you are a hypocrite.
You could be right, but it just seems arrogant to me to say that average people don't care about or understand the constitution.
The constitution is just so basic, and I really have to believe that the vast majority of people know that it deals with fairness.
I have trouble believing that Sarah sets out to talk down to people and feels the need to simplify the issues for them. I just don't believe it.
I really do get it, and I can't explain myself any clearer.
I am on my way out to hold signs for Scott Brown. It is warm and sunny here and I feel great. I hope you have a great day too.
She had a limited time to speak, and the moderators (FOX)
had their questions they wanted to ask her. She spoke one line a few times..The Health Care Bill is unconstitutional.
She did not elaborate, she wasn’t given the time. BUT she said it. We can read the Constitution and contact our lily livered Republican leaders and see if we can push them off their cushy chairs and try to make them speak out about the unconstitutionality of ALL of nobama’s bills being PUSHED through congress. At this moment in time only about 3 Republicans speak out, I’ve seen them ONLY on FOX, haven’t seen them on any on the alphabet screens. The screaming media pretend mccain is the Republican spokesman...I really have my doubts, because much of what he say is of little value to the Republican cause.
Wonder if the democrats realize that they have now PO’d the 85% if the working population that don’t belong to unions. This is the story of I pay a tax but my neighbor doesn’t because he belongs to a protected group. This ain’t gonna fly with the people.
If there are some things wrong with the bill that group X cares about, and other things wrong that group Y cares about, one should focus on the former things when addressing group X, and on the latter things when addressing group Y.
I don't think Ms. Palin is in any way implying that the bill has no problems other than the union language. Rather, she is informing the union rank and file that the bill is corrupt in ways that they will understand, with the expectation that her audience will start to wonder what other corruption lurks within the bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.