Wisconsin Recall

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Unions are thugs for the most part.

Nonsense. Unions haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades.

You falsely characterizing the current crop of Wisconsin school teachers, firefighters and police as physically violent is purposely disingenuous and nasty on your part.

Or you just don't know what "thugs" really means when you use the term "union thugs"?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nonsense. Unions haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades.

You falsely characterizing the current crop of Wisconsin school teachers, firefighters and police as physically violent is purposely disingenuous and nasty on your part.

Or you just don't know what "thugs" really means when you use the term "union thugs"?

Rogue/Cheat=Thug

Perhaps definitions have evolved a bit. Thuggish behavior was exhibited in a useless recall election of a Governor that was silly enough to hold up the occasional campaign promise.
Chicago politics=thuggery.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Rogue/Cheat=Thug

Perhaps definitions have evolved a bit. Thuggish behavior was exhibited in a useless recall election of a Governor that was silly enough to hold up the occasional campaign promise.
Chicago politics=thuggery.

No. The definition of a "thug" remains "a violent person, especially criminal."

I am not denying that unions used to use violence decades ago. It was ugly when unions first came about. The term "union thug" had a specific meaning, and it involved violence and terror and pain.

But you characterizing unions the same way today is simply wrong.

Words have meanings. You are calling union members - the schoolteachers, firefighters and policemen of Wisconsin, "union thugs".

That's nasty of you to call them that. And factually wrong.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. The definition of a "thug" remains "a violent person, especially criminal."

I am not denying that unions used to use violence decades ago. It was ugly when unions first came about. The term "union thug" had a specific meaning, and it involved violence and terror and pain.

But you characterizing unions the same way today is simply wrong.

Words have meanings. You are calling union members - the schoolteachers, firefighters and policemen of Wisconsin, "union thugs".

That's nasty of you to call them that. And factually wrong.

Unions are bullies then. That the majority of their forced membership would opt out of given a choice.

Obama will say or do anything to get elected. Which was the original point of my statement. The thug comment was more about seeing them take a public beating.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Unions are bullies then. That the majority of their forced membership would opt out of given a choice.

Obama will say or do anything to get elected. Which was the original point of my statement. The thug comment was more about seeing them take a public beating.

You parrot and foment hate terms. You repeat the hate terms deliberately used by ALEC this past year to turn members of the public against Wisconsin public school teachers, firemen and policemen. Falsely accusing them of violence, calling them "union thugs", justified suddenly violating contracts, justified taking their pensions and cutting their pay by 1/3, removing all negotiated salary protections they used to have, in favor of giving tax cuts to the wealthy and using the money that used to go to school teachers, policemen and firemen to plug the gap.

These are not "union thugs". These are school teachers, policemen and firemen who have served your community for decades, who have accumulated savings and pensions, who thought they could retire after a lifetime of hard work.

That's nasty. Think before you speak. There is a deliberate reason you were taught to use that term out of meaning. There is a deliberate reason ALEC and the RGA has told people to start referring to neighbors as "union thugs". It was so certain political people could benefit themselves with tax breaks, and you'd go along with using the lifetime of hard work of your neighbors, of your schoolteachers, policemen and firemen, to pay for it.

Because suddenly you were taught to view these people, not as your neighbors or protectors or the teachers of your children, but as nasty violent "union thugs" who deserved to lose what they'd spent a lifetime working for. Hate them! Unions are thugs! Take away all they have! They are the cause of all your financial problems!

Because rich people want tax breaks, and the money has to come from somewhere.

It's just a shell game. Teaching you to call your neighbors "union thugs", and blame your neighbors, enables it.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

These are not "union thugs". These are school teachers, policemen and firemen who have served your community for decades, who have accumulated savings and pensions, who thought they could retire after a lifetime of hard work.

They can just like everyone else. By contributing to their retirement like everyone else. Pensions are not reasonable for public companies and are definitely not reasonable for public employees. My father has been paid almost 2x what he made during his 25 years as a police officer since retiring. Pensions and UAW demands for the continuance of them are what killed the auto industry in Detroit. If you don't think something has to happen to the public version to continue the lifestyle you are a fool.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They can just like everyone else. By contributing to their retirement like everyone else. Pensions are not reasonable for public companies and are definitely not reasonable for public employees. My father has been paid almost 2x what he made during his 25 years as a police officer since retiring.

Should your father's income be suddenly cut in half now, after he's retired? Should the contract he worked under be altered after the fact? After he's retired? Because that's what you are supporting. Not changing the contract for the future retirees - but changing it for people that have already retired.

And is your father a violent, evil union thug? Because that's what you call him.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Unions are bullies then. That the majority of their forced membership would opt out of given a choice.

Obama will say or do anything to get elected. Which was the original point of my statement. The thug comment was more about seeing them take a public beating.

More than half of them did opt out in WI once they were given the choice

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

More than half of them did opt out in WI once they were given the choice

Don't mistake opting out of union membership with trying to increase the bottom line of one's paycheck after Walker has stripped your raises out of it.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nonsense. Unions haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades.

You falsely characterizing the current crop of Wisconsin school teachers, firefighters and police as physically violent is purposely disingenuous and nasty on your part.

Or you just don't know what "thugs" really means when you use the term "union thugs"?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._to_media.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._to_media.html

Yes - those people could be called union "thugs", during that action, couldn't they?

But what does that have to do with non-violent Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and police men?

Nothing.

I suppose the point that I was making, that unions are no longer rooted in violence and intimidation, was simply too nuanced for you to grasp? Or, because one union in one action in 2011 was violent, you want to use that to disprove the simple truth that unions today are not violent?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._to_media.html

those are probably thugs, not union members. you know, like every time there was an assault with occupy, it was never occupy members...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

those are probably thugs, not union members. you know, like every time there was an assault with occupy, it was never occupy members...

Yes - because there were 20 black bloc anarchists at a public protest breaking windows, we can blame an international occupy movement for being violent.

Because there was an incidence of union violence in 2011 in Washington State, we can call Milwaukee teachers "union thugs".

Bigotry. It lives. Proudly.

There was an illegal hispanic that voted once. That makes them all illegal voters. There were 4 felons that voted in the 2008 presidential election. That makes all felons illegal voters. And we know that illegals and felons vote for Obama. Because "they all do".

You should know, hypocrite.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

You should know, hypocrite.

I admit I tend to think all self-professed anarchists are remarkably stupid. But that's based upon personal experience. Not assumption.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nonsense. Unions haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades.

You falsely characterizing the current crop of Wisconsin school teachers, firefighters and police as physically violent is purposely disingenuous and nasty on your part.

Or you just don't know what "thugs" really means when you use the term "union thugs"?

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes - those people could be called union "thugs", during that action, couldn't they?

But what does that have to do with non-violent Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and police men?

Nothing.

I suppose the point that I was making, that unions are no longer rooted in violence and intimidation, was simply too nuanced for you to grasp? Or, because one union in one action in 2011 was violent, you want to use that to disprove the simple truth that unions today are not violent?

The Queen of changing parameters. You said plainly that Unions have not bashed people over the heads with violence for decades. That is a patently false statement. You then proceeded to unfairly attack another poster for even suggesting Unions use thug tactics to accomplish their goals.

I suppose as usual you read only the part you want but ignore the inconvenient truth, the same game plan as your beloved President. 9,000 reported acts of violence since 1975 is no small number particularly when the actual number is over 10 times that. Indeed, one violent act is intolerable IMO. You never read about it because it is ignored by the liberal media that you swear by.

Here is an example of what happens when someone tries to hire non-union workers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nasty...ry?id=14572790

Union's haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades? Maybe in the United Fantasyland of Riot, but in the United States of America the Union tactic of using violence and destruction of property to send their message is alive and well.

[OldDog]

It was inevitable...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC_ult6-Tb4

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

The Queen of changing parameters. You said plainly that Unions have not bashed people over the heads with violence for decades. That is a patently false statement.

Yes. I agree. As I already said in the response to your post. We can call the union members you posted about "thugs".

Except my statement was made in a discussion regarding the nonsense of characterizing Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and policemen as "union thugs".

Which is absurd. Do you agree with that? That calling Wisconsin teachers, firefighters and policemen violent union thugs is incorrect?

Nuance. It's too complicated for some.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

The Queen of changing parameters. You said plainly that Unions have not bashed people over the heads with violence for decades. That is a patently false statement. You then proceeded to unfairly attack another poster for even suggesting Unions use thug tactics to accomplish their goals.

I suppose as usual you read only the part you want but ignore the inconvenient truth, the same game plan as your beloved President. 9,000 reported acts of violence since 1975 is no small number particularly when the actual number is over 10 times that. Indeed, one violent act is intolerable IMO. You never read about it because it is ignored by the liberal media that you swear by.

Here is an example of what happens when someone tries to hire non-union workers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nasty...ry?id=14572790

Union's haven't bashed people over the heads with violence for decades? Maybe in the United Fantasyland of Riot, but in the United States of America the Union tactic of using violence and destruction of property to send their message is alive and well.

my husband joined the union here 15 years ago because he didn't want to deal with all the bs if he didn't.
matter of fact, they had a strike here back in the mid 70's. people, including family members, still don't speak to each other to this day over that strike. that was 40 years ago, and people still get called 'scab' (and worse) for having crossed the picket line. and there was, and is, still talk of how certain folks 'better not drive across the levee at night'. the meaning there is they won't make it unscathed, but would be run off the road into the ouachita river.