Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Monday that he believes public employees should be allowed to bargain collectively on wages and other benefits as long as it does not create an undue burden on taxpayers.
Extremely, extremely conservative.
We freak out when Romney punts on this issue in Ohio, but when Cain says it, it's True Conservatism Defined.
Then again, maybe it's just because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Cain also appeared to be unclear on the issue of collective bargaining as it involves federal employees. Asked if he thought federal employees should have the ability to bargain collectively, Cain said: "They already have it, don't they?"
Told they didn't, he said, "They have unions."
I can see how someone missed that. It's only been mentioned sixty five thousand times in the various state-level union disputes.
Look, I do in fact understand that unions are popular and that it's a hard sell to do what Walker did (or what Kasich tries). I understand the political value of moderation of rhetoric on the subject.
In fact, I approve.
But what infuriates me is this argument from the position of pragmatism will be trotted out by Cain's supporters, who will nonetheless turn around and savage people for failing to take the True Conservative Line steadfastly enough themselves.
Which is it? If you're telling me we have to go with this guy just for the hardcore no-deviations ideology, I'm going to need him to be hard-core and no-deviations on ideology.
And if we're willing to give some wiggle room, I want to know why candidates like Perry are rejected out of hand for having one bigger deviation on ideology and two small ones.