Reply With Quote
If not for Barack Obama's friendship with the unions, we might be protected from videos of longshoremen saying " sucker" and union heads using harsh language that might be interpreted by stupid people as a call for violence.
How did that work out for the unions though?
If not for Barack Obama's friendship with the unions, we might be protected from videos of longshoremen saying " sucker" and union heads using harsh language that might be interpreted by stupid people as a call for violence.
Doesn't make Obama any less of a union shill, which is the point.
He's never condemned any union violence, and there are plenty of examples since he's taken office, with the same conviction with which he's condemned completely fabricated Tea Party violence.
GM did go through Chapter 11. Not sure how that's negating bankruptcy law.
Also, it came back as the largest IPO in US history after the turnaround at 20+ billions.
But Yoni is for losing jobs.
Poor Yoni, his Tea Party isn't too popular here.
Do you think the President of the United States should condemn the actions of a longshoreman caught on tape using vulgar language and putting his hand over a camera lens?
No, the point is that it wasn't a great 2.5 years for unions. Sorry the point flew right over your head.
What Tea Party violence did Obama condemn?
Your still missing the point.
The media has taken much more disconnected Tea Party activities and connected it with violence, completely fabricating the connection. How much more stupid is that than, say, pointing out the President of the United States is friend and benefactor to a thuggish and violent union movement.
Hoffa's harsh language is animated by the violence of his members' actions. Interpreting it as a call to violence is not such a big leap.
And, your characterization of union violence is superficial and disregards the hostage taking at the port, the threats in Wisconsin, and the near-fatal beating of Ken Gladney by SEIU thugs.
So you admit your whole point here is stupid.
Thanks.
So was it the media or Obama?
And a few union nuts are entirely representative of the entire union population?
I'm still missing Obama advocating violence to resolve union conflicts.
No, I got the point; it's just not the point of the thread. Just because the President isn't being successful in his support of unions, doesn't mean he isn't their biggest shill and benefactor.
I stand corrected. There's been no Tea Party violence for Obama to condemn. The most he's been able to do is decry violent rhetoric when the media has completely embarrassed itself in their efforts to connect the Tea Party to violence.
But, ask him to decry union violence and, the White House has no comment.
You're starting to get he idea.
The media has had absolutely no problem characterizing the actions of a few (even when they're total fabrications - such as Laughner's massacre and the non-Tea Party spitting, ######-calling incident) as being representative of an entire political group. But, of course, it's a completely unreasonable leap of logic to connect the President's position with unions with their actual violence.
I'm missing his condemnation of the violence being perpetrated by the members of his friends unions.
The point of the thread is that some union guy was caught on tape using adult language. And if the President doesn't condemn that guy, then the media is sensationalist. Also, per Yonivore, it's a stupid point.
I think we get it now. What a waste of time, though.
Liking and supporting unions is not a crime. Much to your chagrin, unions are legal en ies.
Not sure what you want the WH to condemn? They have to draft a press release for every nut out there yelling at a camera?
Seeing they haven't condemned the Tea Party violent nuts, not sure why you want to hold them to a different standard when it comes to unions.
Wait, I do know why. Yoni is a shill.
No; the point of this thread is the media needs little encouragement to connect the Tea Party to any act of violence to advance the agenda they are a violent political group while, at the same time, ignoring every tangential connection between Democrats and their violent cons uents, in an effort to insulate them against the same characterization.
On one side, you get endless debates about what marks on a campaign poster mean. On the other, you get ignorance over the actual violent acts of liberal groups lest they implicate a violent political movement.
I suppose we could comb through the comment sections on Yahoo News articles for evidence of an inherently violent rhetoric among anti-liberals, and claim that Republican congressmen should condemn those commenters lest they be seen as condoning such rhetoric, but that would be ing stupid.
(Oops, sorry for the adult language)
Anyway I'm sure the media is already doing that. Like, all the time.
Ya it most definitely is a big leap.
A murder attempt on a Democratic might elicit questions about the vitriol used by the other party? Who would've thought?
Ultimately, it was determined he was a nut.
And Palin removed the crosshairs...
Are you equating a man yelling at a camera to a murder attempt?
More than questions. Sarah Palin was specifically blamed for the violence. And, she removed the surveyor's marks because of all the hyperventilating.
First, the murder attempt -- and, the actual murders that took place that day -- have absolutely no connection to the Tea Party or Sarah Palin while, Mr. You, is a member of one of the Local AFL-CIO unions that participated in the violence, vandalism, and hostage-taking. A union, by the way, whose president introduced our President, at a campaign rally, by asking him to use them as an army to "take the sons of es out."
No, I'm not equating the two acts. They're not related. I'm comparing the media's response to the two acts.
I almost missed another of your points.
Can you give me examples of Tea Party vitriol that even come close to rising to the level of the vitriol spewed by some of our Democrat elected officials, much less, America's unions?
Can you give me one act of violence that can be directly connected to any such vitriol? Or, better yet, any violence perpetrated by a group of Tea Party members?
What do you honestly believe he meant by that quote?
Nobody asked her to remove anything. But, for the casual observer, it's easy to see why she did remove them.
So they're not two equal acts, but you want the WH to treat them equally.
That makes no sense. Does the WH has to put out a press release every time a Tea Potty puts up a sign that includes references to guns and killing, or yells at a camera? Those are easy to find too, you know?
lol goalpost moving. Classic Yonivore.
I don't know. Unions are violent groups, as they have proven through the SEIU, during the Obamacare debate, Wisconsin public employee unions during their Governor's austerity campaign, and Hoffa's union during a protest at a port facility.
Maybe it's not what I think but, what his violence-prone members think. I think Mr. You is perfectly capable of taking Hoffa's statement as a call to arms and violence.
What do you honestly believe Sarah Palin's campaign meant by placing "crosshairs" on a map of political races being targeted for defeat?
k
I haven't moved anything.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions