PDA

View Full Version : Who can spar for RP




CurtisLow
10-11-2007, 08:24 AM
Check out the last post in this thread.

http://phillynorml.org/forum/index.php?topic=34.0

BLS
10-11-2007, 08:28 AM
The guys an idiot....and a dope head.
WTF do I care what some dumbass thinks??

We can't convert everyone.

CurtisLow
10-11-2007, 09:35 AM
Dope Head? Is that you Mitt?

DrNoZone
10-11-2007, 09:39 AM
Dope Head? Is that you Mitt?

ROTFLMAO! That was hilarious!

KewlRonduderules
10-11-2007, 09:45 AM
I can see clearly Dr. Paul's position on a number of bills this guy mentions in the post but I am curious if anyone has an argument as to why he voted NO on these particular these:

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing

Slugg
10-11-2007, 09:54 AM
I can see clearly Dr. Paul's position on a number of bills this guy mentions in the post but I am curious if anyone has an argument as to why he voted NO on these particular these:

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing

I don't know why. It's funny how much everyone is scrutinizing Ron's voting record; and ignoring everyone else's.

CodeMonkey
10-11-2007, 10:00 AM
I can see clearly Dr. Paul's position on a number of bills this guy mentions in the post but I am curious if anyone has an argument as to why he voted NO on these particular these:

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing

I can't say Ron's reasons, but these would be my reasons:
They are restrictions on privacy and freedom.

Lobbyists are people too, they shouldn't have to report every detail of their business to the government.

Employers should be allowed to discriminate based on union membership. Just like a person is free to join a union, a business owner is free to not hire union members if he doesn't like the terms of the union. Freedom isn't government-enforced "fairness." Freedom is freedom, for everyone.

stevedasbach
10-11-2007, 10:01 AM
I can see clearly Dr. Paul's position on a number of bills this guy mentions in the post but I am curious if anyone has an argument as to why he voted NO on these particular these:

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing

As I recall, the union bill stated that is more than 50% of employees requested a union, one would automatically be created without a vote. Under current law, after a certain percentage of employees request a union, there is a vote.

If this bill passed, you would see unions pressuring people to sign so they could avoid a vote. You need to retain the secret ballot vote to ensure that the workers' rights are protected.

KewlRonduderules
10-11-2007, 10:10 AM
As I recall, the union bill stated that is more than 50% of employees requested a union, one would automatically be created without a vote. Under current law, after a certain percentage of employees request a union, there is a vote.

If this bill passed, you would see unions pressuring people to sign so they could avoid a vote. You need to retain the secret ballot vote to ensure that the workers' rights are protected.

Ok that DEFINITELY makes a lot of sense!