This is just stupid, imho.

http://www.timesnews.net/article/90...igating-haslams-role-in-volkswagen-plant-vote

 

Opened an inquiry?

Has there been an inquiry as to why a politician can't publicly talk about the impact of a union on state revenues? We are a nation of a horde of laws, many of which make no sense whatsoever.

 

Tell it to the judge.

 

Not sure that language can be shown to mean more than satisfaction of Tennessee law.

 

I'm just reporting here.

 

and that's fair. I suspect Americans said that to slaves for decades. You know, back when they were 3/5 of a person - by LAW.

 

I think you are confused as to who's rights were potentially infringed upon, and who is trying to limit the power of working folks.

I think your "state revenue" comment was closer to what motivates your view on this.

 

I think you simply missed the point, but that appears to be one of your standby moves here.

 

Projecting?

 

I noticed you didn't bother trying to make those points make any sense.

And if I need to explain to you that existence of a law has nothing to do with quality or value of said law, I understand the miss.

 

Politicians bullying workers out of unions is not a good thing. A law preventing it would be a quality law.

 

bullying? seriously? How in the hell is the union not bullying? Why would the info flow be limited to unidirectional? How on earth is that quality?

 

presumably you're going to make those points make sense? Maybe the university ivory tower view will make some sense this time.

 

So information should flow from the government? I like this and can get behind it.

 

you're acting like it doesn't today. That's absurd. Why would we limit it in specific cases, like this one.

The government owes us regular financial accounting and politicians owe is to relate to us the financial impact of large happenings in their jurisdictions. When has that not been absolutely true?

Stop making things up.

 

What am I making up? Please stop constructing straw men.

 

where's the straw? you pretended that the government provides no financial plan or advice. Are you pissed that the idiot inhabiting the Oval Office sold us a turd of a HC plan on a completely fabricated lie of an economic layout?

Now, why in the hell are we muzzling them in this instance?

 

Muzzling them? They are threatening to remove incentives if there are unions. That isn't just giving out information, that is coercion at best.

 

Who threatened to remove incentives? Are we sure that was the deal?

Why were we OK with the state openly offering incentives on the front end? Why does the muzzle come out when talking unions? Why doesn't the state have a stake in the outcome when we're talking about unionizing a plant?

Do you have a legitimate reason for the state to be unable to weigh in when it has a massive stake in the place?

 

This is going to be a gold mine the next time you want to talk about any kind of government "intrusion."

I do not think the state has the best interests of the workers or taxpayers in mind. Rather, they have the interests of their campaign donors in mind.