Chamber of Commerce

zappasguitar

Well-known member
So...

I called the Chamber of Commerce today and asked to join without having to pay dues.

I was told that's not fair to other dues paying members of the Chamber and was denied.

How is that different from "Right to Work"?
 
More strawman bullshit.....you want to JOIN the organization and not pay ?......Right to work means you DON'T BELONG to the organization and don't have to pay....

totally the 180 degree opposite of your nonsense...not even a decent attemt.....totally stupid arguement.

A straw man a is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
 
I don't think it's a strawman I just don't think he understands what RTW is. Like Bravo said RTW would allow you to work at a firm without having to join a union. That is not the same as saying I want to join your organization without paying.
 
I think bravo just learned about the concept of a strawman.

I've been posting the definition enough lately.....its time you pinheads learned what a strawman is.....Zippy has certainly given us an even more obvious example
in his nutty post....his argument isn't even "superficially similar"....its the direct opposite.
 
I don't think it's a strawman I just don't think he understands what RTW is. Like Bravo said RTW would allow you to work at a firm without having to join a union. That is not the same as saying I want to join your organization without paying.


A straw man a is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Holy shit cawacko....if Zippy's post isn't a misrepresentation of the RTW position I don't know wtf is.....
Are you sure YOU know what a strawman is....
 
A straw man a is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Holy shit cawacko....if Zippy's post isn't a misrepresentation of the RTW position I don't know wtf is.....
Are you sure YOU know what a strawman is....


Zippy.............schooled again.
 

Zippy.............schooled again.


Is this "Zippy" person you keep referring to a poster on these boards?

I don't think I've ever read one of this person's posts.

But I do understand why you feel you must divert attention away from the pitiful double standard you Right to Work Righties are displaying in this thread.

Let me know when this "Zippy" shows up...maybe he can actually make a point, which is more than we can say about bravo.
 
Is this "Zippy" person you keep referring to a poster on these boards?

I don't think I've ever read one of this person's posts.

But I do understand why you feel you must divert attention away from the pitiful double standard you Right to Work Righties are displaying in this thread.

Let me know when this "Zippy" shows up...maybe he can actually make a point, which is more than we can say about bravo.

If I may ask what is the double standard being displayed in this thread?
 
If I may ask what is the double standard being displayed in this thread?

I actually posted it over in the Right To Work...for LESS thread, but here's a re-print.


I found this on the Raw Story website:

Republican lawmaker’s proposal exempted husband from Michigan ‘right to work’ law

A Republican state representative in Michigan proposed an amendment to exempt her husband’s job from the so-called “right to work” law which limits the ability of unions to collect dues.

State Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons (R) on Monday offered an amendment that would have added corrections officers like her husband, Brad, to the list of types of jobs not covered by the anti-union law. Police and firefighters had already been exempted from the legislation.

“When we talk about the brave women in police and fire we need to remember people in corrections,” Lyon explained earlier this week, according to MLive.com. “These guys work in conditions that we can’t even begin to imagine.”


“It’s not financial. It’s philosophy. I am saying we need to treat our corrections officers that way we treat our police men and women and firefighter men and women.”

Democrats, however, claimed that the proposal was an example of Republican hypocrisy.

“Why would she want to exempt her husband if this is such a great bill?” state House Democratic Caucus spokesperson Katie Carey asked. “We were kind of disgusted with it… We were just kind of disappointed that she would offer this amendment at the same time lauding this legislation.”

On Tuesday, Republicans chose to gavel down the amendment without giving it a vote.


Raw Story (http://s.tt/1wPW5)
 
Is this "Zippy" person you keep referring to a poster on these boards?

I don't think I've ever read one of this person's posts.

But I do understand why you feel you must divert attention away from the pitiful double standard you Right to Work Righties are displaying in this thread.

Let me know when this "Zippy" shows up...maybe he can actually make a point, which is more than we can say about bravo.


Poor Zippy....guess he's given up on that lame-brained Chamber of Commerce bullshit.....
 
Back
Top