tosberg34 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Five states in the U.S. specifically prohibit collective bargaining for teachers. Their rankings in combined ACT/SAT scores: 44, 47, 48, 49 and 50. So it's thanks to the unions for making ACT/SAT scores higher in collective bargaining states? Sorry - there's just too many variables to lay low ACT/SAT scores at the feet of no collective bargaining. I'm sure you'll believe whatever you want to believe to justify your progressive ideology. I'm also sure what's coming next is that Unions gave us fire and the wheel as well. Pure nonsense. Edited February 20, 2011 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 State politics mostly controlled by Republicans. Hmmmmmm-How's that working-Virginia, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina? I can't speak for the other states....but here in Virginny, we get a teacher, an old person and a poor person to fight in a 3-way death match for my tax dollar. I usually sit in a big gold chair waving that single dollar just above their reach while they grovel over it. Oh, and my crown does have thorns. It seems to work just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 So it's thanks to the unions for making ACT/SAT scores higher in collective bargaining states? Sorry - there's just too many variables to lay low ACT/SAT scores at the feet of no collective bargaining. I'm sure you'll believe whatever you want to believe to justify your progressive ideology. I'm also sure what's coming next is that Unions gave us fire and the wheel as well. Pure nonsense. Your response is pure nonsense. The union teachers had nothing to do with it??? Who did? Read the whole article before you spew your garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I can't speak for the other states....but here in Virginny, we get a teacher, an old person and a poor person to fight in a 3-way death match for my tax dollar. I usually sit in a big gold chair waving that single dollar just above their reach while they grovel over it. Oh, and my crown does have thorns. It seems to work just fine. It's pretty obvious by your Virginny rankings on the ACT/SAT. Maybe you should wave $2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Who collective bargains for the taxpayers? The only thing we have is our votes. As Obama once said to McCain...the election's over. We could always sell Wisconsin to Canada to pay off their debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) It's pretty obvious by your Virginny rankings on the ACT/SAT. Maybe you should wave $2. Nah, our schools will be open next week. We can't say the same for WI, OH, IL, CA, NJ, etc, etc. We don't believe in holdings our children hostage for our pettiness. And our Democrats may be morans, but at least they don't run off to West Virginia when the going gets tough like little cowards that promised far more than they could ever deliver on. I noticed the teachers didn't strike when they were being promised everything with no clue on how to ever pay for it. I thought most had Masters Degrees and could figure out 1+1 can never equal 3. I guess it does if you're in a Union. Edited February 21, 2011 by TimC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 We could always sell Wisconsin to Canada to pay off their debt. But you think Wisconsin is already part of Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 But you think Wisconsin is already part of Canada The Canadians aren't very smart. They'll buy it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Five states in the U.S. specifically prohibit collective bargaining for teachers. Their rankings in combined ACT/SAT scores: 44, 47, 48, 49 and 50. I bet the scores are higher for private school students compared to public school students. Just imagine how high they could be if we would unionize those schools!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Nah, our schools will be open next week. We can't say the same for WI, OH, IL, CA, NJ, etc, etc. We don't believe in holdings our children hostage for our pettiness. And our Democrats may be morans, but at least they don't run off to West Virginia when the going gets tough like little cowards that promised far more than they could ever deliver on. I noticed the teachers didn't strike when they were being promised everything with no clue on how to ever pay for it. I thought most had Masters Degrees and could figure out 1+1 can never equal 3. I guess it does if you're in a Union. Your schools obviously need to be open much more. Maybe you should homeschool all your students since you seem to have all the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I bet the scores are higher for private school students compared to public school students. Just imagine how high they could be if we would unionize those schools!!! Private schools can, and do, handpick their students. Public schools can"t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Your schools obviously need to be open much more. Maybe you should homeschool all your students since you seem to have all the answers. Why would anyone home school? I mean it is a FACT your kid will be stupid because they would not benefit from being part of a unionized school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Private schools can, and do, handpick their students. Public schools can"t. Oh I see - you mean other factors may influence ACT scores? According to Mr Yukon the only thing that influences the scores is if they have the right to bargain. Sorry my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) State politics mostly controlled by Republicans. Hmmmmmm-How's that working-Virginia, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina? And they weren't much better when they were controlled by dems (from reconstruction until, oh, the late 90's). It is quite interesting also that over the past twenty years Georgia's per pupil spending has increased more than almost any other state in the union and we still suck ass. It appears to be money well spent. The low test scores in these states have more to do with demographics and the industries in these states. Edited February 21, 2011 by SEC=UGA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Your response is pure nonsense. The union teachers had nothing to do with it??? Who did? Read the whole article before you spew your garbage. Which link is that? I didn't see a link. All I saw was a general statement from YC about some numbers. However, the reason he didn't link it up was because that is from 1999!. Read it here. However, that is not really an article but just a bunch of SAT/ACT rankings that really have NOTHING to do with collective bargaining. Read me? NOTHING TO DO WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHATSOEVER. Be sure to click on the 'Main' link at the bottom of the page. Whose spewing garbage, lies and talking pure nonsense now? Apology accepted. Edited February 21, 2011 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 NOTHING TO DO WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHATSOEVER. To be fair Tosberg, collective bargaining has nothing to do with the current budget crisis either, The latest I read was the union completely caved and balanced the budget, but Walker is still going after the collective bargaining rights. So the threat of "not being able to afford it" doesnt hold true anymore . . . at least for this year/ But when the effects of the business tax cuts come in 2011-2013 (and that is according to your polifact stuff) then Walker needs their ability to bargain for their skills eliminated when much much deeper cuts need to be made. Maybe that is when the other union dominos will fall in terms of benefits and bargaining rights? This is going to be very interesting watching this play out either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Which link is that? I didn't see a link. All I saw was a general statement from YC about some numbers. However, the reason he didn't link it up was because that is from 1999!. Read it here. However, that is not really an article but just a bunch of SAT/ACT rankings that really have NOTHING to do with collective bargaining. Read me? NOTHING TO DO WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHATSOEVER. Be sure to click on the 'Main' link at the bottom of the page. Whose spewing garbage, lies and talking pure nonsense now? Apology accepted. Ha Ha Ha 1999. Hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 To be fair Tosberg, collective bargaining has nothing to do with the current budget crisis either, The latest I read was the union completely caved and balanced the budget, but Walker is still going after the collective bargaining rights. So the threat of "not being able to afford it" doesnt hold true anymore . . . at least for this year/ But when the effects of the business tax cuts come in 2011-2013 (and that is according to your polifact stuff) then Walker needs their ability to bargain for their skills eliminated when much much deeper cuts need to be made. Maybe that is when the other union dominos will fall in terms of benefits and bargaining rights? This is going to be very interesting watching this play out either way. I disagree here. Maybe I am wrong but why is it all about THIS year?? Maybe the budget was balanced this year but all these pensions don't just pay out this year - it is the coming years that will hurt even more. Why does collective bargaining have nothing to do with the current crisis? Didn't it help put us in this crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Which link is that? I didn't see a link. All I saw was a general statement from YC about some numbers. However, the reason he didn't link it up was because that is from 1999!. Read it here. However, that is not really an article but just a bunch of SAT/ACT rankings that really have NOTHING to do with collective bargaining. Read me? NOTHING TO DO WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHATSOEVER. Be sure to click on the 'Main' link at the bottom of the page. Whose spewing garbage, lies and talking pure nonsense now? Apology accepted. It has to do with right-to-work states as opposed to states that have collective bargaining. Where are the lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 To be fair Tosberg, collective bargaining has nothing to do with the current budget crisis either, The latest I read was the union completely caved and balanced the budget, but Walker is still going after the collective bargaining rights. So the threat of "not being able to afford it" doesnt hold true anymore . . . at least for this year/ But when the effects of the business tax cuts come in 2011-2013 (and that is according to your polifact stuff) then Walker needs their ability to bargain for their skills eliminated when much much deeper cuts need to be made. Maybe that is when the other union dominos will fall in terms of benefits and bargaining rights? This is going to be very interesting watching this play out either way. Again, Walker needs to end collective bargaining because (i believe) we are going to end up in the same hole later on. He has also said he has to do it to guarantee that local municipalities and counties have the ability to work out their budgets as well (more will be unveiled on March 1st in his full budget proposal). Even FDR (a liberal hero) was against Public Unions because the government represents the people and you should not be able to hold up the people's business. Read it here or here. I thought it was very interesting as he made some very good points. I was going to make another point here but got completely caught up typing that I forgot. Damn...well, I'll try to get it in later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I disagree here. Maybe I am wrong but why is it all about THIS year?? Maybe the budget was balanced this year but all these pensions don't just pay out this year - it is the coming years that will hurt even more. Why does collective bargaining have nothing to do with the current crisis? Didn't it help put us in this crisis? gbpfan . . . this WHOLE THING started because the budget needed to be balanced for 2011 . . .remember? For the love of God man the name of the bill is the "Budget Repair Bill"!!!!!! If it is for coming years, then you help make my point that ALL unions should have been addressed. They ALL have issues coming up in the future. If it was about the future, then everything should have been addressed before the Dems start trying recall elections next year (and they will). Why werent they done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 It has to do with right-to-work states as opposed to states that have collective bargaining. Where are the lies? The so called facts about the states with the lowest SAT/ACT scores (that was touted by YC and you) was a result of the absence of collective bargaining was a complete fabrication. You're putting two unrelated stories together and trying to say that they ARE related and one is the direct result of the other. That's playing fast and loose and you've been busted. There are way many more variables to consider when even trying to determine something like that. Michael Moore does the same BS with his so-called "documentaries" and you lefties eat it up like it's the Gospel. I'm surprised YC would even throw that out there knowing it could be fact checked. And it's from 1999 to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Again, Walker needs to end collective bargaining because (i believe) we are going to end up in the same hole later on. He has also said he has to do it to guarantee that local municipalities and counties have the ability to work out their budgets as well (more will be unveiled on March 1st in his full budget proposal). Even FDR (a liberal hero) was against Public Unions because the government represents the people and you should not be able to hold up the people's business. Read it here or here. I thought it was very interesting as he made some very good points. I was going to make another point here but got completely caught up typing that I forgot. Damn...well, I'll try to get it in later. Please keep in mind that I have not been defending public unions at all, and have a history of being outspoken against them. Ok? FDR quotes are wholly unneccessary. IMO Walker is going after it now because he has the votes to, and has plans to completely gut MPS. he has openly spoken of such plans I believe. I will continue to call Walker out as a coward for not addressing ALL public unions and their rights. Until then, he looks like he is only going after the biggest union that opposed his campaign. If he actually cared about futire spending, then he would address them ALL. When he does so, I will roundly applaud him for applying the same standard evenly to all public unions. Until then . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 gbpfan . . . this WHOLE THING started because the budget needed to be balanced for 2011 . . .remember? For the love of God man the name of the bill is the "Budget Repair Bill"!!!!!! If it is for coming years, then you help make my point that ALL unions should have been addressed. They ALL have issues coming up in the future. If it was about the future, then everything should have been addressed before the Dems start trying recall elections next year (and they will). Why werent they done? Are you sure it's not called the "Budget(s) Repair Bill"? Or maybe its implied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 gbpfan . . . this WHOLE THING started because the budget needed to be balanced for 2011 . . .remember? For the love of God man the name of the bill is the "Budget Repair Bill"!!!!!! If it is for coming years, then you help make my point that ALL unions should have been addressed. They ALL have issues coming up in the future. If it was about the future, then everything should have been addressed before the Dems start trying recall elections next year (and they will). Why werent they done? Give me a break. Yea it is about this year but I am pretty sure that all of these decisions have been made looking out farther than 2011. You are nuts if you think it is only about this year. That would be idiotic. I hear ya I hear ya on the fact that ALL unions should have addressed. I think we all know your view on that since this is the 34th time you have written that same exact statement. I hope Walker is not done and hopefully the other unions will be addressed. Let's save time for the future. From now on you can just type AUSBA and we will all know that it stands for ALL UNIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. It will save you the effort of typing it out 25 more times and save all of us the effort a reading it AGAIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts