Ou812, that Sherk article is from the OPINION pages of the NYT. He's a right wing hack from the Heritage Foundation who first published his article in the Daily Signal and other right wing rags.
That is suspect enough and I don't trust his recounting of Meany's words without a big twisting but, even so, why do you think that we lefties think George Meany - or, for that matter FDR - walked on water? Because it might work for another one of your ploys?
George Meany was against affirmative action and supported racist, discriminatory practices - which is in large part why African-Americans were long suspicious of the labor movement. He supported the Viet Nam war effort and was hardly the most progressive (don't forget, although the labor movement was initiated by lefties they were purged from it in the McCarthy era), in fact, quite the Archie Bunker, blue collar conservative. He was not a hero of lefties. Rather, he represented the selling out of the labor movement after McCarthyist purges and the NLRB.
FDR, heroic as he was, wasn't Jesus either. He refused to bomb the railheads to the concentration death camps or even to accept Jewish refugees. He had said, "America is a Christian, Protestant nation and Jews and Catholics are here under sufferance.". He had Japanese-Americans interred and so on.
You know, we once believed the Earth was flat and the Sherk article contains nothing but the same bogus arguments I vociferously refuted in my earlier post, just bogus, twisted logic. That not the voters themselves but their elected representatives are negotiating with public employees, that Sherk thinks is so significant, is an irrelevance. Since when do we live in a direct democracy and I, for one, would not vote for someone adversarial to public employees. If I'm an employer I'm not a rogue scoundrel or exploiter.

Ou812, I give you facts, I give you leads - not links. Everything isn't on the internet and just because there isn't a link to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and many links are to authoritatively dressed up falsehoods - as you well know ;^)).
I'm an old school oldster and do things the old fashioned way, from memory. You don't have to accept it at face value but I challenge you to refute or disprove it.
Anyway, my opinions are much better founded, and I cite facts to back them up, than the purely unfounded conjecture of the racists in this thread.
Anyway, what are your sources? My opinions are better founded than the contrary ones.

Attacking Public Employee Unions is just another distraction brought to you by the Fascist Party. That way the continuing extreme concentration of wealth can proceed with sly discretion. Their god damn free trade laws already broke most of our private sector unions. If you're anti union, you're anti democracy.

Why no discussion about the billions in tax money going to non union private sector companies, and sub contractors....aren't they working for all of us too? I feel like I have no say in how much a freaking bomb costs....if I wanted one to begin with. Like I said, the Fascists have already broke most of the private sector unions with free trade and they're pissed that almost all Public Employee Unions support Democrats...so they simply want to figure out how to break those unions too.

Saulys, calm down and tell me what part of what I said is wrong. Public employees work for the taxpayer. I'm a taxpayer, public employees are working for me (and other taxpayers). "It's impossible to bargin collectively with the government "--George Meany, former president AFL-CIO. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions

Mark I am a Canadian, we don't have undocumented workers. We put people that are here illegally in handcuffs and send them home like every country in world does except the US. All of my employees are on some type of commission so the better the company does the better they do. I said I have no problem with unions but I don't believe I should have to collect their dues for them.

Ou812, you're fulla shit and you damn well know it. That doesn't follow at all. It's one of those business talking point frauds to get you, another poor laborer or blue collar worker, to think of yourself as an "employer" as a taxpayer. I guess that makes you feel rich, if just for a moment, when you should be thinking of yourself as their fellow worker and when you screw them - or vote to have them screwed - you're screwing yourself. Just another bogus strategy of division to undermine the unity - and thus the political power and bargaining power - of workers to get them to think of themselves as employers when they're just poor working schmucks like their "employees".
Your logic is a completely laughably absurd attempt at your right wing fraud. It is undemocratic for public employees' unions to be denied their right to associate and represent themselves and bargain collectively. This superstition you try to get people to adopt that because they are public employees that is somehow nefarious is just anti labor horse shit sham.

Hartmann's post is about public service unions. Aren't public service unions for government employees? So my neighbor, who may be a government employee, is allowed to negotiate a pay raise that I, a taxpayer, will have to pay. What ever happened to one person one vote? This stupid proposal in effect gives union members more power than tax payers who pay public employees salaries.

Kilosqrd, that is one of the most obtuse comments I have ever seen. I just told you what happens in Chicago, dude.
Thom said that the denials of loans are largely because of race and that's provable, demonstrable and true. You, because you have a bad opinion of black people, have decided that it's because they all have bad credit.
That would also be provable and demonstrable if it were true and nobody, no liberals or lefties, would be taking issue with it. Liberals and lefties don't make those kind of unsupportable arguments. Only right winger racists and frauds do.

Kend, that is nonsense. Is that why undocumented workers are so highly paid? They work like the dickens but you business people take full advantage of them and pay them as little as you can get away with paying them.
You just want to talk about "individual merits" of a worker so you can divide them and break up their unity because you know that's where their negotiating power lies.

I question how safe it is to assume that members of the govenment much less the Supreme Court actually do desire " a stong middle class".

Mark, reread Thom's piece. Thom claims blacks are being denied loans strictly on race. I will not deny that it is a possibility in some cases. However, he completely overlooks the other criteria as if those are non factors or don't exist at all. You did it too.