Ronnie was the crowned prince of 1980's double-speak.
Add his Alzheimers, and his wife's astrologer into the mix and you got a guy that will utter anything he sees on a teleprompter.

lol internet argument

“The basic right to form free trade unions and to strike.” Go Wisconsin, it's your birthday, you gonna party like it's your Birteday…

I hate the way sites like this completely polarize the debate and turn it into a right vs left issue. It seems to me that people just want value for money all around and that the arguments have become completely reactionary. Have some damn respect for each other. I'm not a ring wing lunatic if I want public sector pay to be kept in line with the private sector, and I'm not a bleeding heart liberal if I want teachers and nurses to have a good standard of life and the same rights as me.  STOP BEING SO GOD DAMNED DRAMATIC AND HATE FILLED

“I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike…but we cannot compare labor management relations in the private sector with government.” Ronald Reagan Nuff said

Bwahahaha! Fact check, ever hear of it? Reagan was against unionizing against the taxpayers/voters. Completely different than the private sector unions in Poland that were fighting against the PUBLIC SECTOR communists. Seriously, you guys are trying too hard. You lost the vote in November, you lost the debate, and you will legislatively on this issue one way or another. The States will go bankrupt without putting the public sector unions in their place—BEHIND the people paying their outrageous compensation packages. You know, the people they work for?

Now's a good time to call us all statist scum, Elwin.

i dont think people understand. if the bill passes in wisconsin, that means that money won't automatically be taken out of workers' pay checks by the government and given to unions. rather, the workers have the right to decide if they want to give money to the unions to represent them. its giving them a choice, they will still have the ability for ''collective bargaining''… all its doing is taking away the automatic power unions have and the automatic dock in wages that workers feel.

Like Jesus Christ, Ronald Reagan would not be accepted in today's republican tea-party…

Question for all the union busters. What is it about the public sector that makes civil servant unions so “dangerous”? And don't give me some canned answer like, “Public workers serve the people, so they're different and shouldn't have a union.” That makes no sense. Private sector workers serve their employers, yet they're still allowed to have a voice. Why aren't public workers allowed to have a dialogue with the people who employee them?

Oh shit subby! You weren't even so much as a spermatazoa when Reagan was elected.

blah blah blah - the difference is that in Poland, the unions fought socialism, in the U.S., the teachers unions behave like the Communist Party: overpay goverment workers, you have no choice but to be in a union, you have no choice over which candidates get the money from unions, you have no voice unless you agree with the union (and better protect your kneecaps if you don't). There is no comparison. The unions in the U.S. are shamefully on the complete opposite side of Liberty than the unions in Poland that gave their life to fight back against socialism.

I thought he was going to tell us being a *unicorn* was a basic human right, so disappointing

So you don't have access to basic rights if you're a public employee? Reagan didn't seem to be making that distinction. The reality is that intellectually consistent libertarians recognize that unions would play an important role as employee advocates in a free society. It doesn't matter if you're a public or private employee, a truly minimalist state would not tell people how they're allowed to organize and negotiate for benefits. But as any intellectually consistent libertarian will tell you, the Republicans are just stooges for plutocratic oligarchs with about as much interest in instituting a libertarian conception of a free society as the segregationist Dixiecrats who spawned the modern incarnation of their party.

I advise anyone with interest to watch HBO's outstanding documentary on Reagan (called “Reagan”… why not). It will surprise anyone… left, right, whoever. Conservatives invoke his name and policies, often in support of policies Reagan himself might have opposed. Watch the documentary if you can, or, if unavailable, read this piece I found by Joshua Green, “Reagan's Liberal Legacy.” It might be a little harsh on Reagan, but a good passage sheds some light on Reagan's sometimes-left-leaning maneuvers: “A sober review of Reagan's presidency doesn't yield the seamlessly conservative record being peddled today. Federal government expanded on his watch. The conservative desire to outlaw abortion was never seriously pursued. Reagan broke with the hardliners in his administration and compromised with the Soviets on arms control. His assault on entitlements never materialized; instead he saved Social Security in 1983. And he repeatedly ignored the fundamental conservative dogma that taxes should never be raised.” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html (Disclaimer: By the way, I'm libertarian, and rather conservative when it comes to economic policies. That being said, there are fundamental flaws with how Republicans generally refuse to accept the sometimes-reality that some government programs are necessary, that some government funding is required, and that taxes do keep our infrastructure and system floating.)

I'm as liberal as it gets but he didn't say that anywhere in that video.

OTOH, it is nice to see the wingnutters admitting that WI is all about Union busting, and nothing to do with “balancing budgets” (something that Reagan didn't do, but Clinton did, btw).