Florida Approves Bill Allowing Classroom Teachers To Be Armed

Yeh. They are right leaning just like coke brothers are right leaning. Lol

Forget the Wall Already, It’s Time for the U.S. to Have Open Borders
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/forget-wall-already-its-time-us-have-open-borders

They want open borders.

Koch brothers love open borders. They run the second largest privately owned company in America. More illegal immigration means cheaper and more obedient laborers for them and their allies .They benefit from depressed wages. America looses.

They are more of corporate cronies than libertarians. Let alone them being actual conservatives. They are capitalist first and foremost.

In many ways, Trump's election was just as a referendum against them and their cronies as it was against the left. They and their appointees are the "establishment" that Trump was elected to fight against. They share common causes with neoconservatives and neoliberalism.

 

Something else you don't know--how our court system works. It's not often I run across someone as clueless as you are who insists he knows what he's talking about.

The right-to-work laws undermining workers' collectively bargaining rights are a violation of the First Amendment.

This will help you understand the legislated right of workers to bargain collectively. State right-to-work laws effectively undermine the federal guarantee.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law#Right_to_organize​

Absurdly non-responsive.

Back to comparing often meaningless written guarantees. You're firing blanks. And I never claimed Australians have more rights.

If I'm not free to call you a fascist, you shouldn't be able to call me a leftist. We'll see if the moderators are consistent.

The Constitution delineates your rights as a citizen. It's the backbone of our government.

The Constitution sets out your rights.

Your Imaginary Friend isn't mentioned in the Constitution. But the Constitution says

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."​

I think you may be living in the wrong country.

 

You might have a point

I always thought that the answer to illegal immigration is either to make it worthwhile for people to stay where they are ( foreign aid) or make it not worth thier while to go to another country (no jobs).

 

You don't like getting bopped in the figurative snout.

 

Gun violence is not a myth. Just that more people get murdered by bludgeoning than guns. Most guns deaths are suicides. Not murder

And as far as those that are killed with "assault rifles" That number is so low that leftists sound disingenuous when they mention banning them. Like its the numer one weapons used in murder. Lol. Not to mention that mass shootings are classified by 4 gun deaths or more. How many mass shootings are there in Chicago? They banned gun. See what good it got them. And virtually all mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

Isn't it strange how state with some of the most strictest gun laws are states where most murders happen? Why dont gun airports and court houses do t get targeted by mass shooters but gun free zones do. Guns aren't the problem. People are.

As for global warming...
Provide me with one definitive scientific study that measures to what degree humans effect the climate. Climate has been changing. It is changing. And it will continue to change. The question is not whether the climate is changing, the question that matters is to what degree does human emissions effect the climate. Is it like a drop in a cup? A drop in a bucket? Or is it like a drop in a swimming pool?

Geologic activity, both on ocean floors and land, pump out more green houses gasses than humans ever could. And that's just geologic activity. Coupled that with forest fires and melting ice, and humans dont even come close.

 

I don’t agree. If I work at a company and don’t want to be part of a union I should not be forced to pay union fees. Your first amendment rights should not be hurting my rights.

 

The quick and the dead reality show brought to you by your NRA lobbyists.

 

Corporations force many people to sign agreements contrary to their beliefs as a prerequisite to getting hired.

 

Naw, a tank is more better.

 

None of which require you to pay for something you don’t want to pay unless it’s a tax or a court rule withholding.

 

Gun violence is no myth but the data does not support gun laws as a way to curb it.
What is a way to curb gun violence? Putting gang members is prison for life. 80% of gun violence is gang related.

 

But a tank is likely to increase the body count far beyond the damage done by a mass shooter.

Just kidding.

 

Right-to-work laws make illegal for union workers to quit en masse (strike) if the employer hires a nonunion employee. If the employer wants to hire you, or replace all the union workers, so be it. The union workers aren't slaves and should be able to quit.

If the employer wants to keep his union employees, he can terminate your employment, or not hire you in the first place if you refuse to join the union. The employer should be free to make an agreement with the union to only hire people willing to join the union.

 

I have a strong feeling that most employers who have unions would really prefer to hire employees who are not union members.
Having said that, the fact that an employee can work without being a member, yet is being forced to pay the union, indicates that the employer wants that non-union employee and that employee is forced to pay due to existing laws.
The right to work should literally mean that I have the right to work at a company that has union and not be forced to pay their dues. I fully support such laws.
At the same time I don’t see why union employees cannot quit en masse. That would probably hurt the union because the employer would be able to fill those spots with non-union staff.

 

Really?

 

Then the employer can terminate the striking union employees.

Right-to-work laws shouldn't exist. If they didn't, the employer could tell you that being a union member is a condition of employment. Why would they do that? Probably to avoid the union members quitting.

Because business thinks skilled employees would have too much leverage.

If you're Boeing, good luck replacing your striking union members in Everett, WA.

 

Lefties will claim that the extreme example and rare pregnancy via rape, justifies abortion on demand, yet they will make up situations that haven't even occurred in order to justify a certain course of action when it comes to guns.

 

And that is a BS stat since it includes suicides and gang violence. Removing one tool does no good if the person simply picks up a different tool to do the same thing.

 

That “freedom index” is limited to economic freedom only, whatever they mean by that.

 

No, they protect the 1st amendment rights of the workers who don't want to be forced to join a union.

 

Gawd. Ist Amendment 1791. USA first Union 1881.

 

So?

 

So.....when the First Amendment passed, no-one gave a thought to Unionism. It did not exist.

 

I noticed you didn't tell LangleyMan that when he said

Right to work laws didn't exist either. In fact the internet, TV, and radio didn't exist either but all are coverage by the 1st Amendment.

 

True.....and the words of that Amendment do cover internet etc. They do not cover Unions.