The Zombie Apocolypse Will Come From The Left

[twyacht]

Famous quote now,...."Never Let A Crises Go To Waste"....We now have Stephen Lerner, of the SEIU. In his own words.

We Are Heroes, Who Need to Create a Crisis: SEIU’s Stephen Lerner at Progressive Summit Tells Unions, Community Organizers and Students They Need to Escalate Protests, Break Laws, Occupy Abandoned Houses and Spread the Crisis All Over U.S.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/we-are-heroes-who-need-to-create-a-crisis-seiu-stephen-lerner-at-progressive-summit-tells-unions-community-organizers-and-students-they-need-to-escalate-protests-break-laws-occupy-abandon-houses/

Take heed, this is not an unintelligent fellow. There is appeal, and a dangerous motive. He, and his cronies target the community organizers, college students, other unions...Those easily swayed by a "cause".
(Jimmy Hoffa Jr.'s  recent quote ring a bell?)

In the old days, this would be considered insightful, and it is,....but in a PC, BHO enabled country,....this is all by design.....

Just ask Richard Trumka....The election to rid much of this scourge is over a year away.....Pray we get there. If what Super Stephen asks for come true, there will be a RE-action by folks and it will not be pretty.

III Percent.

When Democracy Becomes Tyranny/Riots/Anarchy


I STILL HAVE A VOTE!!!

[tombogan03884]

Of course it will come from the Left, the Unions, and the Democrats. It will also involve large portions of the black community.
They all have a history of violence. It was not white Republican Conservatives who rioted in Watts, or Chicago in 1968.
On the other hand, the sooner the better, it will give our side the opportunity, and motivation to strike back, crushing those who are destroying America.
Our current problems are deeply rooted in the minds of large portions of urban voters and will not be cured by the current popularity contest type elections.

[Pecos Bill]

Well I finally have found the solution to all the country's problems: let's turn the country over to the infallible, all knowing, benevolent folks from New England. They'll fix things and then let us all know what we can and can not do and how much we're allowed to have. Sounds like a plan to me.

Pecos, they ever humble and subservient.

[tombogan03884]

Thanks for the endorsement Peco's, but TT is from Iowa so it isn't a purely New England ticket.
Glad to hear that you can get behind deporting illegals, cutting non uniformed Gov pay and staff by 25%, eliminating, 25+% of all federal agencies. Replacing the current personal income tax scam with a system of tariffs and duties that penalize American companies that manufacture in China while rewarding foreign companies that provide jobs here. Eliminating 75% of foreign aid, busting public sector unions, re instituting the property requirement for voting, and ending the failed money hole known as "the war on drugs".

I think in 1 term we could cut the deficit by half and in 2 terms have it paid off.

[Ichiban]

Michael Moore Threatens The Rich: Let's "Deal With It Nonviolently Now"
"The smart rich know they can only build the gate so high. And, and, sooner or later history proves that people when they've had enough aren’t going to take it anymore. And much better to deal with it nonviolently now, through the political system, than what could possibly happen in the future, which nobody wants to see," Michael Moore said on Current TV's "Countdown" program.

Moore was alluding to riots, which he was discussing with "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann prior to his comment to deal with things nonviolently now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/22/michael_moore_threatens_the_rich_lets_deal_with_it_nonviolently_now.html

[Sponsor]

[Herknav]

...re instituting the property requirement for voting...

I would own property except that my federal service has had me move on the average of every 1.8 years and I refuse to play the market at that rate.  Heinlein suggested that some sort of federal service should be required before you "earn" a vote. 

Other thoughts: 
- I am on board with denying a vote to anybody who takes money from the federal government.  You are welcome to the Social Security contributions you put in, but if you go over, you lose your vote.
- Do away with welfare ultimately.  That's what private charities are for.  In the meantime, I'd be happy with random drug testing to receive benefits.  If you EVER pop positive, you lose benefits for life.
- Your number of federal agencies to eliminate is too low.  I would start by disbanding everything established on or after 9/11.  Everything from Wilson on needs to be looked at VERY carefully.
- There's nothing wrong with public unions in theory.  You are more than welcome to form a little group and protest how much you make as long as we (the public) are allowed to fire you for non-performance and replace you with someone who WILL do the job for that salary/benefits package.  No union activities while on the clock.
- No more tenure for teachers.  Parents get to vote on whether that teacher stays/goes at the end of the year.  If your kid has had a bad teacher, most of the parents know it.
- End government research funding.  If it's that important, some company is researching it.  There's a reason that Weight Watchers isn't funding a shrimp on treadmills study.
- Pay politicians a percentage of their pay based on the percentage of votes they make.  If you miss 84% of the votes during your career, you can miss 84% of your salary.
- No public service pensions

There's more, but that's a couple minutes worth.

[tombogan03884]

It's a long post, so I will insert my comments into it.

I would own property except that my federal service has had me move on the average of every 1.8 years and I refuse to play the market at that rate.  Heinlein suggested that some sort of federal service should be required before you "earn" a vote. 

Other thoughts: 
- I am on board with denying a vote to anybody who takes money from the federal government.  You are welcome to the Social Security contributions you put in, but if you go over, you lose your vote.
I have 2 separate thoughts on it, originally it meant real estate type property, but nowadays many prosperous people live in apartments so my thinking is either a "net worth" minimum, or else having to produce proof of gainful employment to vote.
(At this time either system would disqualify me from voting )

- Do away with welfare ultimately.  That's what private charities are for.  In the meantime, I'd be happy with random drug testing to receive benefits.  If you EVER pop positive, you lose benefits for life.
During the Depression people who were "on the town" were prohibited from voting or buying tobacco or booze. Therefore even if drugs were legalized , there is legal precedent to prohibit their use by those "on the dole". Either way, relief should be controlled at the local level where enough information is available to seperate the unfortunate from the lazy.

- Your number of federal agencies to eliminate is too low.  I would start by disbanding everything established on or after 9/11.  Everything from Wilson on needs to be looked at VERY carefully.

I know. There are just so many agencies I picked a number out of my butt, all agencies would need to be reveiwed, eliminating the useless, like National Endowment for the Arts, the ineffective such as Department of Energy and DEA, and those duplicated at lower levels such as Health and Human Services. About the only ones that would be "safe" are DoD and the Post Office.

- There's nothing wrong with public unions in theory.  You are more than welcome to form a little group and protest how much you make as long as we (the public) are allowed to fire you for non-performance and replace you with someone who WILL do the job for that salary/benefits package.  No union activities while on the clock.

The whole idea of "Labor Unions" is wrong. It sets up an adversarial relationship between the people who need jobs, and the people who need workers, the 2 sides can not succeed unless they work together. A better method of relations needs to be found.
On the subject of Public sector unions, If we are not willing to let Congress tax us what ever they please, it is foolish to allow unelected bureaucrats over rule us on issues such as their wages, and duties. They are our employees and can either do their assigned job at the agreed wage or they can find another line of work.

- No more tenure for teachers.  Parents get to vote on whether that teacher stays/goes at the end of the year.  If your kid has had a bad teacher, most of the parents know it.

Teachers should be held to the same standards as any factory worker. If they do good work and produce quality product they deserve to be rewarded, if they turn out an excessive percentage of low quality product they need to be canned.
Tenure is why Johnny can't read in the 10th grade.

- End government research funding.  If it's that important, some company is researching it.  There's a reason that Weight Watchers isn't funding a shrimp on treadmills study.

I have to disagree here, there are to many examples of huge benefits from Govt involvement in areas that seemed to have little or no commercial applications, Airplanes and computer systems are prime examples. needs to be some sort of common sense applied to the process though.

- Pay politicians a percentage of their pay based on the percentage of votes they make.  If you miss 84% of the votes during your career, you can miss 84% of your salary.

I'll agree with this with the stipulation the less bills they deal with the better for all of us. Politics is the one field where once they are in high production is a bad thing.

- No public service pensions

People who spend a career working for the Gov are just as deserving as in any other industry. Your idea would deprive career personnel in the Military, Intelligence, Foreign and Postal service of retirement benefits.
The problem you are addressing could be better handled by term limits on elected offices.

There's more, but that's a couple minutes worth.

[Herknav]

The whole idea of "Labor Unions" is wrong. It sets up an adversarial relationship between the people who need jobs, and the people who need workers, the 2 sides can not succeed unless they work together. A better method of relations needs to be found.
On the subject of Public sector unions, If we are not willing to let Congress tax us what ever they please, it is foolish to allow unelected bureaucrats over rule us on issues such as their wages, and duties. They are our employees and can either do their assigned job at the agreed wage or they can find another line of work.  I think we're saying the same thing.  I would allow them on the grounds of freedom of speech.  However, you can't do personal (to include union) stuff on the company dime, and we (the public) reserve the right to replace you if you're so unhappy with your job.

I'll agree with this with the stipulation the less bills they deal with the better for all of us. Politics is the one field where once they are in high production is a bad thing.  That's why I stipulated a percentage instead of a raw number.

People who spend a career working for the Gov are just as deserving as in any other industry. Your idea would deprive career personnel in the Military, Intelligence, Foreign and Postal service of retirement benefits.  I know.  I'm willing to dial this one back to "commensurate with common practice in the private sector."  Gov't employees don't need gold-plated benefits plans.

The problem you are addressing could be better handled by term limits on elected offices.  I completely disagree with term limits.  Term limits are called elections.  What we need to do is stop giving incumbents the decided advantage at election time.

[tombogan03884]

From Herknav's post

"People who spend a career working for the Gov are just as deserving as in any other industry. Your idea would deprive career personnel in the Military, Intelligence, Foreign and Postal service of retirement benefits. I know.  I'm willing to dial this one back to "commensurate with common practice in the private sector."  Gov't employees don't need gold-plated benefits plans.

The problem you are addressing could be better handled by term limits on elected offices. I completely disagree with term limits.  Term limits are called elections. What we need to do is stop giving incumbents the decided advantage at election time."

I'd say they should get something comparable to "industry standard"

No pension for elected office, if you can afford to pay for a campaign you do not need to burden the tax payers with your retirement.
If you can't afford to finance your own retirement then do like they did for the first 100+ years of our Republic.
Get a f*cking job, like every one else.

And yes, we are on the same page, we are just debating details of how BEST to accomplish the goal.