Teachers are not people

Andvare

King
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
788
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...unions-contributions-20120925,0,4439245.story

Mitt Romney said Tuesday that teachers unions should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns, because their financial backing tips the negotiation process away from the interests of students.

I actually agree that only private persons should be able to donate anything. In fact, the best solution would be no donations at all. But how on earth can he defend this, and still defend that corporations can donate any amount they want?
 
He's a flipflopper with no objective code defining his behavior. That's how.
 
Teachers are no corporations, so obviously they aren't people either.
 
why the hate for citizens united?
 
Without teachers the current gain in societies would not be. Education enlights. Mitt needs to start considering making freinds then creating hordes upon hordes of foes to his rule... o wait he made the hordes when he dismissed a high portion of the population. Mitt has a odd plan to get votes.
 
You could easily add clauses requiring you to have X signed supporters in Y states to avoid such misuse.
 
You guys are talking about teachers and the teachers union as if they're one in the same. Though I agree with the OP in that it's a contradiction to permit corps from donating but not the NEA, I'd like to point out that the NEA does a lot of crap and being against it does not mean your against teachers. "Without teachers the current gain in societies would not be. Education enlights"
This isn't the case.
 
So the NEA does a lot of crap. Big whoop. Why should it, as an organization, have any less of a potential voice, in terms of the potential to spend money, than a commercial organization? Or the Knights of Columbus?
 
Mitt Romney said Tuesday that teachers unions should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns, because their financial backing tips the negotiation process away from the interests of students.

That's funny because it outlines one of the biggest problems with American politics: money.

Why is it a problem? Because it puts power in the hands of people who have money and takes it away from those who do not, in what is supposed to be a democratic, everyone-is-equal system.

He is right about some unions being overpowered though. Some people are incredibly hard to fire, even if they're as incompetent as a moldy rock, which humorously enough would be an apt comparison to romney as well.
 
I hereby announce my intent to run for President of the United States.

Now give me government money.

edit: I have X signed supporters in Y states.

Really I would prefer that a set amount of money is allocated to the candidates rather than all this private money being thrown around.

How about a compromise where candidates can still accept private money (I too hate idea of publicly funded campaigns) but we limit the amount they can spend?

In my view political campaigns should be boring and informative, not the Hollywood-esque spectacle we see in most democracies. And those hyper-expensive campaigns make the politicians start their term already in huge debt to their main contributors, undermining their independence.
 
Nobody negotiates in the interest of the students...certainly not the city. Of all the stakeholders, teachers are the most likely to go to bat for things that will help students, but those interests do not always overlap.

And yes, if we're going to say its okay for Exxon to spend a gazillion dollars, or a casino, then teachers better be able to as well.
 
There's just one little problem: teachers are too liberal, so of course their donations have to be stopped.

Jeeze, why can't you guys get with the program here? Destroying liberalism is a matter of national security, and Romney is doing the best he can without a sniper rifle and a clear shot at Rachel Maddow.

This is hard! /Ann Romney
 
article said:
Williams contrasted Romney’s pricey private school education in Michigan, which would now cost nearly $39,000 a year, with a failing school in nearby Detroit where just one-fifth of the students graduate, to ask whether every child deserved the type of education that Romney received.
All that money and it still couldn't buy Romney a conscience. :(

article said:
The GOP nominee repeatedly stressed the importance of parental involvement, saying he unsuccessfully sought to create classes for soon-to-be parents while governor of Massachusetts.

“I got some resistance from folks who said, well, the poor don't have time to go to your class,” he said. “I said I'll hold them on Sundays, hold them on weekends. I want people to understand the importance of parental involvement.”
What kind of classes for parents - how to be parents? How to indoctrinate kids to the "true faith" while helping them with their math homework? Teaching the parents to read? The article doesn't go into that...

And apparently Romney thinks poor parents only work Mondays - Fridays. :rolleyes:
 
I don't understand the logic behind Romney's statement. It's completely indefensible.

Oh wait, teachers bad m'kay?
 
The Romney campaign only supports football referee unions. It is funny how football turns conservatives into liberals. All of a sudden, they support unions, publically financed infrastructure, and select universities.
 
The Romney campaign only supports football referee unions. It is funny how football turns conservatives into liberals. All of a sudden, they support unions, publically financed infrastructure, and select universities.

Not to mention salary caps and massive wealth redistribution!
 
Top Bottom