"There will be blood"

“There will be blood,” threatens a Democrat legislator in Michigan and union thugs have already started making that threat a reality.

Jimmy Hoffa predicts a civil war. Meanwhile, the Michigan governor is getting death threats.

Whether or not you believe a right to work law is a good idea, you have no right to get nasty about it. All good American citizens condemn this violence. We all know that President Obama and Democratic leaders hate this kind of violence. I have included below clips of their reactions unambiguously condemning the violence by pro-union demostrators in Michigan.

Posted by Christine & John at December 12, 2012 9:31 PM
Comments
Comment #358668

Violence or threats of violence are indefensible no matter the reason. This applies to both today’s pro-labor protesters as well as others including the tea party movement from 2009/2010.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 12, 2012 10:34 PM
Comment #358674

Hey C&J y’all forgot the clips. And here I was, already to finally agree with Obama about something.
I find it ironic that the Democrats that claim the believe in free speech attacked a tent set up by folks that disagree with them.
I reckon fee speech is only free if it agrees with them.

Warren
Funny, I watched CNN, CBS, MSNBC and all the other liberal media. And not once did I see anyone in the tea tea party movement being violent. And I’m sure these bastions of fairness would have been all over it they had.
Now the occupy movement sure had it share of violence. Maybe your mixing the two up.
They had both tea party and occupy rallies over in Valdosta. I talked to a couple of cops that covered both of them. Both told me that they had more trouble from the occupiers than the tea party.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 13, 2012 12:27 AM
Comment #358677

I don’t know what world you lived in at the time. Threats of violence were rampant amongst Tea Party Protesters and were widely reported just as they are with the pro-labor protesters.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 13, 2012 12:58 AM
Comment #358685


The provocateur got punched, with emotions so high I am surprised he wasn’t violently attacked the way he acted. Were it Florida with their stand your ground law he would have been justifiably shot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/steven-crowder-punched_n_2287169.html

Posted by: j2t2 at December 13, 2012 8:22 AM
Comment #358688

j2t2, so you are saying the union guy was justified in punching a Fox contributor? Are the union thugs also justified in threatening the Michigan governor?

I watched many news links regarding the TP rallys and never once saw violence or the threat of violence; but I did see and hear violence at the OWS rallys. I saw violence in Wisconsin and I saw violence in Michigan. I find it interesting that the non-violent, free speech left only defends these beliefs when it comes from the left, but conservatives do not have the same right.

Perhaps Jimmy Hoffa is correct; perhaps the left wants a civil war.

Posted by: george at December 13, 2012 8:58 AM
Comment #358690

As a side thought; the Michigan people overwhelmingly defeated a union barganing law in the last election. So it will be interesting to see the results of the latest law signed by the governor. The MSM will never tell us how many people decide to drop out of the unions, so we will have to search for these numbers. I personally believe this is a great victory for citizens in a failing blue state, and it shows the truth behind union violence. America is seeing the true picture of freedom from the left.

Posted by: george at December 13, 2012 9:04 AM
Comment #358692

Michigan is nowhere near being a Red State, and by the time your Republicans are through, it will be well on its way to deep blue. Did anybody happen to mention that the supposed pulling down of the tent was managed by the AFPers themselves?

The real question here is how much more deception you’re going to tolerate from your media before you figure out that their benefits are short-term, and their costs to your party, in alienation from mainstream society, are long term?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 13, 2012 10:43 AM
Comment #358697
j2t2, so you are saying the union guy was justified in punching a Fox contributor?

No. I am saying this little publicity stunt by the Faux provocateur could be considered harassment and both should be charged with misdemeanors for their actions. However were I the guy that allegedly punched the provocateur I would have made sure there was no doubt as to the criminal charges I would have earned, as well as a large hospital bill for the Faux guy.

Are the union thugs also justified in threatening the Michigan governor?

Lets not forget the real issue here. This ALEC law was ran through the Michigan legislature without a chance for those that opposed it to have a fair say in the matter. This combined with the bully tactics of the fascist right winger, Gov. Snyder(not to mention the Faux provocateur), gives certain leeway to those protesting the loss of their unions and hard earned dollars. They are not thugs they are teachers and blue and white collar workers. Were this anything but extremist ideology imposed upon the middle class the police and firefighters would have been included in the law.

Right to work cheap law hurt the state economy not help it. These laws cause the middle class to shrink so we all should be mad as hell.

Why do those on the right begrudge them their 50k a year while objecting to a tax increase on the millionaires?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 13, 2012 11:33 AM
Comment #358702

The unions actions were obscene and repulsive… out of control. Nothing like that has been documented at a TP gathering. Those who try and defend it with any type of “yeah, but” is just flat wrong.

It would seem that for many of you far left liberals posting here that nothing is ever truly going to come into focus for you…nothing is ever going to get weighed properly on the scales with a smidgen of objectivity thrown in. We see it here; we see it in Washington; we see it everywhere.

Ditto for the right right radicals. Two immovable forces. They will have no role in moving us forward off of high center. You are insignificant.

Posted by: John Johnson at December 13, 2012 1:46 PM
Comment #358703

What is the objection to a law that says you can’t force someone to join a union, but which allows unions? I have lived and worked in ‘right to work” states. There are unions, and those who want to can join them. What is the justification for forcing someone to join something that they may find objectionable? Dues money is the only thing that comes to mind.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at December 13, 2012 2:04 PM
Comment #358705

John, Apples and oranges. Why are you comparing the Tea Party rallies to these union protests over right to work cheap laws? These people are fighting for their livelihood, not some illogical “keep the government out of my medicaid” ideology.

Whether or not you believe a right to work law is a good idea, you have no right to get nasty about it.

The issue here is civil, so perhaps a civil war should be declared, IMHO. The civil rights of union members and those that work for a living have been violated and hopefully they won’t be civil about fighting it. Democracy is at stake and fighting the plutocracy may require, as Jefferson says, the blood of a few tyrants.


I believe Bertrand Russel answers all these false claims about right to work cheap laws when he tells us-
“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”
Bertrand Russell
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/bertrandru408841.html#isCKcvldfeuP6eq1.99


Posted by: j2t2 at December 13, 2012 2:51 PM
Comment #358706

John Johnson-
You talk of objectivity. Do you recall the last time union members brandished guns at one of their rallies?

You also attribute the actions broadly, rather than specifically to those few involved. What’s objective about that? That sounds like a fairly prejudicial statement to me.

The problem with some people claiming objectivity is that what they really intend to say is that their point of view is pre-emptively right, and that everybody else is just caught up in their little world of illusion.

Oh, and I just remembered. Do you recall how Tea Party members acted in those town halls? The vein-bulgingly red-faced screaming about government takeovers and socialism?

I won’t say that every union member does their brothers and sisters proud, but what I will say is that somebody who labels a union member a thug without attributing specific acts of violence is themselves engagin in verbal thuggery, defaming somebody’s reputation on prejudicial grounds.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 13, 2012 3:37 PM
Comment #358707

Generally speaking, if I read the way the law works correctly, Right To Work is more like “Right To Freeload on Union Representation without paying dues”.

This sounds to me like something that Republicans would call marxist socialism if applied to a corporation or a law firm. If people get the benefits of union representation, they ought to pay for it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 13, 2012 3:48 PM
Comment #358708

“Did anybody happen to mention that the supposed pulling down of the tent was managed by the AFPers themselves?”

I watched the video and what I saw was the union people pulling down the tent. I further watched as the union thugs looked like out of control maniacs as every other word they spoke was bleeped by the media. So I disagree with your comment.

“No. I am saying this little publicity stunt by the Faux provocateur could be considered harassment and both should be charged with misdemeanors for their actions.”

J2t2, the 1st Amendment guarantees the right of free speech, but it does not guarantee the right to physically attack another person.

“However were I the guy that allegedly punched the provocateur I would have made sure there was no doubt as to the criminal charges I would have earned, as well as a large hospital bill for the Faux guy.”

Then you have shown yourself to be more radical than the union thug. Why would you want to physically hurt someone simply because you disagree with their interpretation of a law that was legally passed?

“Lets not forget the real issue here. This ALEC law was ran through the Michigan legislature without a chance for those that opposed it to have a fair say in the matter.”

The real issue is that the people of Michigan voted in a Republican governor and legislator; the law was passed legally in the legislator and signed by the governor. If you are upset with this, then you must also be very upset with a Democratic congress and president ramming through Obamacare without transparency before the American people and passed by a straight party line.

“They are not thugs they are teachers and blue and white collar workers.”

Perhaps you could explain this; are these union thugs or are they peace loving, freedom of speech loving protestors:

“Clinton Tarver has been serving hot dogs to hungry locals in downtown Lansing, Mich., for the last five years, but a brush this week with a pro-union protest literally upended his small business in a matter of minutes.
During a protest against right-to-work legislation in Michigan’s capital, Tarver’s catering supplies were destroyed when demonstrators tore down the tent where he was serving and trampled his gear.
The tent had been set up by the conservative Americans for Prosperity, which supports the legislation Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law Tuesday that allows unionized workers to opt out of paying union dues.
Tarver, who has been a small business owner for the last 16 years, was there to give hot dogs to supporters in the tent on the Capitol lawn. He said he was just checking tickets, not sizing up customers.
“Everyone that had a ticket I had given a hot dog to,” the 63-year-old owner of Clint’s Hot Dog Cart and Casual Catering told FoxNews.com. “So when two guys, one with a mask, came to get their hot dogs, I didn’t think anything of it because they had tickets and I was just there for a job.”
He described the action that ensued as “violent.” Only minutes after he’d handed the two men their hot dogs, the pair tore down the tent, turned over his serving tables, smashed his hot dogs, tossed a cooler filled with sodas and spilled his chili.
“I kept explaining that I was just here to do a job, that I wasn’t on anybody’s side, but when people started calling me racial slurs, my friend who works at the Capitol told me I had to get out of there, so I crawled out,” said Tarver, who is black.”


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/unions/2012/12/13/union-thugs-destroy-black-mans-hot-dog-stand?intcmp=fly#ixzz2Ey6KwG7o

Perhaps you could explain why this black man was also called a “N*ger” and an “Uncle Tom”? I can’t wait to hear the left’s justification of this. And it was the union thugs that tore down his tent, by his own testimony. But, thanks to the generosity of the American people, and I’m assuming not union workers, $30,000 has been collected to allow this black man to restart his business.

“John, Apples and oranges. Why are you comparing the Tea Party rallies to these union protests over right to work cheap laws?”

It was the left who tried to justify the violence of the union thugs as also happening at the TP rallies. This was a lie.

Speaking of apples and oranges, this comment: “You talk of objectivity. Do you recall the last time union members brandished guns at one of their rallies?”; was a misleading attempt by the media to make something out of nothing. It was a lie then and it’s a misleading lie now.

“This sounds to me like something that Republicans would call marxist socialism if applied to a corporation or a law firm. If people get the benefits of union representation, they ought to pay for it.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 13, 2012 3:48 PM

This is your personal opinion and has nothing to do with the law. Why is it the left always bases their opinions on feelings, instead of the law.

Posted by: george at December 13, 2012 4:23 PM
Comment #358709

1. Some TP’ers yelled. Some interrupted. I saw them do this on every channel on my tv. F bombs were not dropped. I did not hear every other word being bleeped. I saw no violence against others and in-your-face intimidation. The unions actions were over the top. I was able to view the most controversial segments only on FOX and MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

2. The argument that jobs or salary levels are being adversely affected in right to work states is reported as bullshit. All of them appear to have lower unemployment and higher earnings.

Posted by: John Johnson at December 13, 2012 4:34 PM
Comment #358710

J2t2

“The provocateur got punched, with emotions so high I am surprised he wasn’t violently attacked the way he acted.” - the man asked a question and a psycho attacked him. No excuses when you meet words of disagreement with violence.

Stephen

Violent union thugs. Period. No excuse for their violence. Good Americans condemn violence against people excising free speech rights. I have always done that. I guess tea partiers are better citizens than your thugs. I think that physically attacking someone for asking questions is the act of a thug.

You say lots of things I don’t like. Would I be justified in punching you out for that reason? I hope your answer is no. So why do you excuse violence against other Americans for their free speech?


Posted by: C&J at December 13, 2012 5:11 PM
Comment #358712

“So why do you excuse violence against other Americans for their free speech?”

Posted by: C&J at December 13, 2012 5:11 PM

I hope this was meant as a rhetorical question. When has Stephen or any other liberal on WB ever condemned violence by unions or OWS’ers?

The events tha took place in WI and MI are disgusting and show the true colors of the left. Thank you george for the story about Mr. Clinton Tarver. I had not heard it on any news outlet, but I do think it shows the goodness of some Americans, who were willing to financially cover his losses. I wonder how many lefties contributed?

Posted by: Frank at December 13, 2012 6:14 PM
Comment #358713

Frank

Generally speaking, liberals are better people in theory, while conservatives are better people in fact.

A liberal intellectual is one who loves all of hummankind, but doesn’t like people.

Posted by: C&J at December 13, 2012 6:25 PM
Comment #358714

Warren
I don’t have the time to watch every news show. Maybe you do and saw something I didn’t. But I did see enough news to know that I would have seen at least one news story about tea party violence. Specially since the liberal media would have been all over it if it was half as rampant as your making like.

The Michigan Governor and Legislature are to be commended for passing the right to work law. No one should be forced to join a union or pay union dues to work.
The attack on the tent by union thugs is just one more example of how unions deal with folks that disagree with them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 13, 2012 6:36 PM
Comment #358716

A few simple questions for my liberal friends.

1) Are union employees generally more productive in the workplace than non-union employees?

2) Do unions allow pay increases for individual employees based upon their work excellence, dedication, and greater production over other employees performing the same job but not as well?

3) Why is organized labor considered to be more valuable to the economy of our country than unorganized labor?

4) Do unions discriminate against non-union workers? Is discrimination justifiable in some cases but not in others?

5) Do unions pay to train and improve the skill level of their members?

6) If unions must layoff workers why do they layoff the last hired rather than the least skilled and productive?

7) Who signs the union workers paycheck? Is the union of greater value than its individual members?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 13, 2012 8:22 PM
Comment #358753

Demented is a good word for the left:

“Like others at MSNBC, Chris Matthews’s commitment to leftism has so overwhelmed his logical faculties that he frequently comes across as demented.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/chris-matthews-around-the-bend.php

This is where the left gets their talking points. From nutcases like Matthews.

Great questions RF; but I doubt you get any intelligent answers.

Posted by: Frank at December 13, 2012 10:55 PM
Comment #358767

By the way, the guy who punched the man, according to full analysis of the video, was knocked down first. Funny how that got left out.

A witness saw somebody in NRA garb kicking at the tentpoles from the inside.

The Camera always lies. Provoke somebody, film the confrontation, then cut out the part where you provoked them. Instant unprovoked attack.

Why is it that whenever we get footage from these people, there always seems to be something they did to change the meaning of what they filmed, something that undermines the substance of their claim?

Your people are actively lying to us, actively manipulating events so folks like you can pontificate about the moral standing of tens of thousands of union workers who never even thought of being violent.

There’s so much mythology soaking the right, its not funny. This, even after they lost an election.

You could give it, and yourself a rest, allow your senses to settle so you could look at things organically, but your leaders, incompetent ideologues that they are, won’t let you figure out things for yourself.

Police are wondering why Mr. Crowther is not pressing charges, not seeking out an arrest or anything, and are questioning why he would get up on national television, and dare the person who hit him to go some rounds with him in an MMA match. He can’t play the victim, but then act different when the police turn up.

There’s also video of him elsewhere, seeming to try and provoke another attack.

Layers and layers of mythology, all protecting you from the fact that you are the victimizers, not the victims.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 13, 2012 11:48 PM
Comment #358769
Then you have shown yourself to be more radical than the union thug. Why would you want to physically hurt someone simply because you disagree with their interpretation of a law that was legally passed?

Not more radical George more willing to leave no doubt behind when breaking the law. I am just saying that if I would have snapped at the provocateurs verbal abuse and actions. The provocateur walked the line but his demeanor was obvious and his intentions were shown. I would have did some serious damage had I chose to violate the law. This guy did very little damage yet is facing charges. I would have got my crimes worth is all I am saying. Yes it would be wrong but so was the provocateur and his taunting of the man.

It was the left who tried to justify the violence of the union thugs as also happening at the TP rallies. This was a lie.

First of all the unions people protesting in both Wisconsin and Michigan are not thugs, that is the propaganda you guys on the right buy into. They are teachers and police and electricians and carpenters and iron workers. They just want to earn a living not a slave wage from the corporate fascist that wrote this law for the repubs/conservatives.

The tea baggers were armed and dangerous and talked a violent game, but in fact most were just old tired and unable to actually be anything more than verbally abusive. What we are seeing from some tea baggers such as the Faux provocateur intentionally starting violent acts by provoking those at union protests.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 14, 2012 12:02 AM
Comment #358773

j2
What is wrong with a law that says that folks that don’t belong to a union doesn’t have to pay the unions extortion dues? Union members can still have collective bargaining. Ain’t that the main thing they want.
Why should I have to pay extortion money to a union I don’t belong to? And extortion is exactly what it is.
Unions are all about making a profit. The left likes to scream about corporations making a profit of the back of their employees. Why don’t they scream about unions making a profit off the back of their members?
O yeah, I forgot. Unions support the Democrats.
There’s a difference between the folks that are doing the unions bidding by protesting, and the folks that are doing the unions bidding by tearing down tents.
I don’t believe that most of the folks there would attack folks that disagree with them. But then there’s the union thugs that it’s their job to.
BTW, do you think that those teachers that ditched school to protest should get paid?

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 14, 2012 1:01 AM
Comment #358774
“The provocateur got punched, with emotions so high I am surprised he wasn’t violently attacked the way he acted.” - the man asked a question and a psycho attacked him. No excuses when you meet words of disagreement with violence.

The facts will come out eventually C&J but to assume that the Faux cameras caught the whole exchange is naive IMHO. The provocateurs from AFP and Faux were part and parcel in tearing down the tent weren’t they? Whether the union guy was defending himself from the Faux provocateur is hard to tell from the video itself. As far as psycho, this Faux guy seemed to me to be psycho in his zeal to gloat over this ALEC victory. Who attacked who is also hard to tell from the Faux video, so while it seems he was asking a question the guy who is alleged to have attacked him was also getting up off the ground prior to defending himself.


“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right-to-work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works.’ Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining… We demand this fraud be stopped.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/in_our_glorious_fight_for_civil_rights-we_must/339139.html

Posted by: j2t2 at December 14, 2012 1:06 AM
Comment #358775
You say lots of things I don’t like. Would I be justified in punching you out for that reason? I hope your answer is no. So why do you excuse violence against other Americans for their free speech?

Because folks that disagree with them don’t have rights C&J.

A few simple questions for my liberal friends.

I’m not liberal RF, but I’ll answer them since it seems that none of our liberal friend a willing to.

1) Are union employees generally more productive in the workplace than non-union employees?
No. In fact a lot of times their less productive.

2) Do unions allow pay increases for individual employees based upon their work excellence, dedication, and greater production over other employees performing the same job but not as well?
No. That wouldn’t be fair to the less productive employees.

3) Why is organized labor considered to be more valuable to the economy of our country than unorganized labor?
Because it generally votes for the Democrat candidates.

4) Do unions discriminate against non-union workers? Is discrimination justifiable in some cases but not in others?
Yes/If your liberal.

5) Do unions pay to train and improve the skill level of their members?
Some do.

6) If unions must layoff workers why do they layoff the last hired rather than the least skilled and productive?
It’s a stupid little thing call seniority.

7) Who signs the union workers paycheck? Is the union of greater value than its individual members?
The employer./According to the unions they are.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 14, 2012 1:19 AM
Comment #358778
What is wrong with a law that says that folks that don’t belong to a union doesn’t have to pay the unions extortion dues? Union members can still have collective bargaining. Ain’t that the main thing they want.

Who you kidding Ron? If your lie had any truth to it why would ALEC be bribing conservatives around the country to pass these laws? Try a bit of honesty Ron for a change.

Because folks that disagree with them don’t have rights C&J.

Ron we have come to expect some ignorant statements from you but you have outdone yourself with this blather. Who has ever said that from the left here on WB? No one except for you conservatives.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 14, 2012 1:50 AM
Comment #358780
The real issue is that the people of Michigan voted in a Republican governor and legislator; the law was passed legally in the legislator and signed by the governor.

George, This guy does a good job of expressing the lowdown way the plutocracy rammed this bill through the Michigan legislature. If it had merit they would not need to do so. Legal maybe, moral no way.

http://beingliberal.upworthy.com/a-politician-loses-it-on-the-state-house-floor-says-what-all-of-us-are-thinking?c=bl3

Posted by: j2t2 at December 14, 2012 2:13 AM
Comment #358781

J2
Y’all don’t have to say it. Your attitudes says it for y’all.
Can you prove that the right to work law prohibits collective bargaining?
Can you prove bribery by ALEC?
Or are you just blindly excepting the liberal talking points again?
And why is everything anyone you disagree with says a lie? Can’t you argue your point any better than that?
I’ve found over the years that the party that’s wrong in an argument is the one that starts calling the other a liar.
The only thing y’all are upset about with the right to work law is the unions can’t extort money from nonunion members anymore. That means they might not have as much to give to the Democrats election coffers anymore.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 14, 2012 2:16 AM
Comment #358804
Y’all don’t have to say it. Your attitudes says it for y’all.

And your telling me to argue my point better, Really?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 14, 2012 8:27 AM
Comment #358809

Stephen Daugherty said:

“By the way, the guy who punched the man, according to full analysis of the video, was knocked down first. Funny how that got left out.

A witness saw somebody in NRA garb kicking at the tentpoles from the inside.

The Camera always lies. Provoke somebody, film the confrontation, then cut out the part where you provoked them. Instant unprovoked attack.

Why is it that whenever we get footage from these people, there always seems to be something they did to change the meaning of what they filmed, something that undermines the substance of their claim?

Your people are actively lying to us, actively manipulating events so folks like you can pontificate about the moral standing of tens of thousands of union workers who never even thought of being violent.”

Stephen, you are the one who always claims to only use facts…do you have facts to back up any of these comments?

“There’s also video of him elsewhere, seeming to try and provoke another attack.

Layers and layers of mythology, all protecting you from the fact that you are the victimizers, not the victims.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 13, 2012 11:48 PM

The only mythology is the mythology in your statements.

Now you have j2t2 carrying on your mythological comments about TP rally violence. You brought up the comments about armed Americans at TP rallies; perhaps you could explain what you are talking about, or are we just supposed to take your comments as truth?

Posted by: Frank at December 14, 2012 9:23 AM
Comment #358810

It is foolish to debate with fools. It is futile to debate with fools. Their defense of the obscene, out of control union thugs reduces down to this…”Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

Posted by: John Johnson at December 14, 2012 9:31 AM
Comment #358811

Re/right to work states; the BLS, whom the left regards as the gospel of labor statistics in America, has shown us that right to work states have a lower unemployment rate and higher personal income. The prior to MI, 23 states who are RTW attract more companies and these states are in less financial dire than the non-RTW states. These are the facts.

Posted by: Frank at December 14, 2012 9:36 AM
Comment #358812
Now you have j2t2 carrying on your mythological comments about TP rally violence. You brought up the comments about armed Americans at TP rallies; perhaps you could explain what you are talking about, or are we just supposed to take your comments as truth?

Frank you have shown that you fall for everything the conservative media tells you to fall for. Yet you question what we say as if we are the liars despite all evidence to the contrary. Time to get out of the cult Frank.

http://ncfreedom.us/tag/rally/

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/tea-party-protesters-new-mexico-bring-their-big-guns

Posted by: j2t2 at December 14, 2012 9:44 AM
Comment #358814

By cult, do you mean being an American citizen?

I have no idea why you linked to NC Obamacare, but pertaining to the second link; were any of these people violating the law? Did they have the right to assemble, did they have the right to be armed, and most importantly, did the threaten violence on anyone? The point of your’s and SD’s comments is to infer they are violent, but they’re not. The only ones who have been violent and broken the law are the OWS and union thugs at democrat gatherings. I guess it’s a good thing the union thugs were not armed in MI. Judging from their actions, they could have become dangerous.

Posted by: Frank at December 14, 2012 9:57 AM
Comment #358827

As I stated in a previous post, if Mi. and Wi. and the OWS previews of the comming attractions of the Democratic party, we are in DEEP S**T.

Posted by: KAP at December 14, 2012 12:17 PM
Comment #358834

Let us all take a short break from our from our political discussions and the issues that divide us and come together to mourn the innocent little lives that were taken at Sandy Hook Elementary in CT. Children remind us what life was like before we grew apart from one another as we have gotten older. Truly, these lives that were lost and the families that have been destroyed are of the utmost importance so I’m reaching out to you all to echo these sentiments on WatchBlog as well as to your friends and family.

Posted by: BZA at December 14, 2012 3:06 PM
Comment #358835

Right or wrong, you can probably expect to see more of this as more and more middle class families face the downward spiral to poverty while the CEO’s and corporate boards line their pockets with public and government largess. Forget history much? This is how big changes start. It is driven by the excesses of the monied. People’s Revolution in China, the French Revolution, The Bolshevik Revolution, Arab Spring… These usually are not well planned, they just happen. Bad times often result. But this is the nature of things. Humans will be humans. I’ve pointed this out many times. Those on the unrealistic extreme right will not be convinced.

Oh well. There will be blood.

Posted by: LibRick at December 14, 2012 3:09 PM
Comment #358836

BZA
It sure is a tragedy. My heart goes out to the parents that lost their youngins today. These poor folks are at the top of my prayers.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 14, 2012 3:15 PM
Comment #358843

Frank once again your facts are out in right field. Right to work states are the poorest states do some non biased research. I for one welcome this anti worker anti women push from the right. This is one fight you will not win. After a few more goveners and the house push this crazy right wing crap the right wing tea pees will be sent the way of the wig party.

Posted by: Jeff at December 14, 2012 3:35 PM
Comment #358845

Hmmm, Indiana is a Right to Work state, we are running a surplus…

How are those ‘richer’ states doing?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 14, 2012 4:17 PM
Comment #358846

j2t2,

Apparently you aren’t aware of this little fact…

Peacefully exercising your right to carry arms is NOT violence…

Where is the violence you say occurred? I have seen nothing in either of the links you provided.

In fact, from your second link:

“There were no reported incidents of violence.”

Do you really equate carrying a weapon as ‘violent’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 14, 2012 4:23 PM
Comment #358847

George, This guy does a good job of expressing the lowdown way the plutocracy rammed this bill through the Michigan legislature. If it had merit they would not need to do so. Legal maybe, moral no way.

j2t2 at December 14, 2012 2:13 AM

Interesting description and one that could easily apply to obamacare…don’t you think? This is stinky hypocrisy.

I find our founding documents to be quite clear in delegating powers to the federal government and state governments. Over the years many of the powers delegated to the state have been usurped by the feds. So far, states still have the right to regulate the right to work laws in their own states.

I would appreciate my liberal friends telling us why the states are wrong in exercising this right. We are told that we must follow the current federal administration because they were elected to lead. Is the same not true of our state governments?

Another question for my learned liberal friends. If unions are so desired and productive, why aren’t union members able to persuade state voters to elect those politicians who are in agreement with them. Is the ballot box decision only valid if it agrees with your political views?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 14, 2012 4:42 PM
Comment #358848

LibRick

If you study the history of these revolutions, you see that they were led by elites and that the mass of people suffered as a result. They were failures. The Russian revolution resulted in at least 25 million killed by their own communist government. China even higher. They ALL resulted in despotism.

Indeed I fear such things; so should you; so should ALL good people.

But none of them were provoked by a free market. They also were not driven by excess of “monied”. That was the excuse used by the evil men who worked to create revolutions in order to take power for themselves and their benighted ideologies.

I understand that leftists dislike representative democracy and believe that “the streets” is where the true power of the people can be seen. We have seen that before and beat it back.

America still has too much freedom to support communism or the like. There are plenty of useful idiots in things like OWS and no shortage of thugs, as we saw in Michigan, but I still have confidence the the fundamental goodness of most of the American people and their power to resist such things.

In other words, the good people of America have the good sense and the power to overcome the violence of the left.

Posted by: C&J at December 14, 2012 4:49 PM
Comment #358849

LibRick, the primary reason behind what you describe as “middle class families face(ing) the downward spiral to poverty” is government excess and political squandering of the wealth of the nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 14, 2012 5:06 PM
Comment #358850

Jeff

Anti-union is pro-worker

Posted by: C&J at December 14, 2012 5:14 PM
Comment #358851

“I for one welcome this anti worker anti women push from the right.”
Posted by: Jeff at December 14, 2012 3:35 PM

Jeff, you really should be more specific if you wish to be taken seriously.

Can you point me to whom you believe is “anti-worker”. What you apparently meant to say was anti organized labor that is allowed by law to discriminate against non organized workers. I don’t like discrimination in any form or fashion and I am surprised that my liberals friends defend it.

Please explain what you mean by anti-women. I love women and am a conservative.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 14, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #358854

“Don’t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”.Greg King

Posted by: Jeff at December 14, 2012 6:27 PM
Comment #358855

Jeff

Generally good advice, but sometimes we need to talk to our liberal friends.

Posted by: C&J at December 14, 2012 6:30 PM
Comment #358890

C&J,

.??? You are saying that the revolutions to which I referred were not fueled by the poor and downtrodden but rather some ‘elites’ by which am going to assume you mean ivory tower liberals?

LOL. OK. The excesses of the Czars, the Emperors, the royalty in France… the palaces, the Versailles, the absolute control of wealth and the power to imprison, seize property, torture, exile, and execute those who opposed them had NOTHING to do with it! Damn! I guess I learned something new here. Just how many elites were there that they could over throw standing armies of well armed men? The pen is indeed mightier than the sword!

BTW… I like how your response implied that I LIKED the outcomes, especially since I specifically stated that these events rarely came out well. Nice job of making my post fit your narrative.

Paint it as you like… that will not alter the events to come. If it is the position of the right that workers earn too much and that the wealthy do not get to keep enough of the huge share of the economy that they funnel to themselves… well, read your history again.

Posted by: LibRick at December 15, 2012 12:33 AM
Comment #358892
Interesting description and one that could easily apply to obamacare…don’t you think? This is stinky hypocrisy.

George you are usually more realistic than this. Obamacare was months in the making. This bill in Michigan wasn’t even on the agenda until days before the Governor signed it into law. So yes it is stinky hypocrisy on the part of the conservatives who whined about PPACA.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 15, 2012 1:24 AM
Comment #358895

Librick

I am saying that they were NOT fueled by the poor and every sophisticated historical analysis agrees with this. People in Russia and France were poorer in years before these revolutions. And the poor as a group did not benefit from them.

Russia was a coup followed by a power grab by Bolsheviks who had little part of the original revolution. France started as a middle class revolution which was seized by radicals, none of whom came from the poorest parts of society.

If you look at revolutions, I cannot think of any where the poor successfully rose up and replaced the existing order. It just doesn’t happen.

The conditions you talk about indeed have a lot to do with revolutions. But it is not the poor that rises up.

The other thing you notice is that most of these revolutions fail to improve conditions. AND that revolutionaries are usually not interested in letting conditions improve. Successful “revolutions” are those that don’t try to change too much at once. Our revolution was successful in that it made radical changes of government, but based on historical experience. It also did little to change economic relationships. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry and Lee were among the most important Virginians before and after the revolution. The same goes for the Glorious Revolution.

I am sorry if I thought you supported revolutions. Since we evidently agree that they are almost always very bad, we should both condemn violence that might be their precursors.

But America, as I wrote, is nowhere near revolutionary. We have it too good. The interesting inversion today is that the people who talk radical changes are those who are less likely to be be productive. Whether the results were good or not, the French peasants did most of the work and those overthrown were the ones who did little. Today the lower 20% does almost no work and the upper 20% supports them.

j2t2

Re Obamacare - it was forced through the same way you say the Michigan law was. Both have become law, whether we like them or not, but the way they did is very similar.

Posted by: C&J at December 15, 2012 7:21 AM
Comment #358897

j2t2, Obama promished us an administration of transparency; but Obamacare was anything but transparent. In fact, we were promised, by the democrats, that we would know what was in the law, after it was passed. If it was done transparently, why this statement? The truth is, it was not transparent, it was done behind closed doors, and it was passed on a straight party line by the controlling party. It is no different from your complaints about the MI law.

Posted by: george at December 15, 2012 8:51 AM
Comment #358907

C&J,

You conpletely miss my point. I’m thinking it is because you don’t want to see it or admit it. Let me spell it out for you clearly.

REGARDLESS of what you think is happening politically, the middle class will PUSH BACK against the policies and sources which cause the shrinking portion of their economic slice of the pie. PERIOD.

You can lay the blame here or there. What does your analysis matter? Or mine? The poor and middle class who are losing economic clout will not sit idly by while the wealthy squeeze and squeeze them. It may happen slowly, but it will happen… unless the course of our economy changes.

Go ahead and tell me I’m wrong. Or tell me why it isn’t right that it will happen. History has shown it will. Right or wrong. Like I first stated. If the trend of the current economy continues and the wealthy continue to control more and more of the economy and actions of the government, local or federal, strengthen the power of the wealthy and weaken the power of the working class to affect their own place in the economy, people will react in their own best interest.

Keep pounding down labor. Tell the poor and economically weak that they are to blame. Push the narrative that the wealthy deserve the immense share of the GDP.

There will be blood. I don’t want it to happen. But there will be blood. History has shown us that. Blind though we be.

Posted by: LibRick at December 15, 2012 11:41 AM
Comment #358922

LibRick

I understand the point you are trying to make but I disagree.

Unions represented the needs of the working class fifty years ago. They helped people like my father and like me get good paying jobs. Thanks. But just like lots of things that were good in the 1950s, unions have become largely useless and actually harmful to the goals of making the middle class more prosperous.

It is NOT union wages that is the problem. It is silly union work rules, the kind bankrupted Hostess and make our auto industry less competitive. Some of these rules made sense fifty years ago when there was a need for mass and largely undifferentiated labor and when America had such a dominant position that we could afford to be less competitive.

We increase the power of the working people by making sure conditions help them and allow them to prosper. Unions are generally a harm to these ends today.

We are in a time of transition. We are moving from the mass industrial times to something else. Just as when we moved from agriculture to industrialism, people were displaced. But the solution, proposed and enacted at the times, to hold people on the land by “protecting” them and limiting use of new technologies failed. Thank God for that. We are much better off.

The same situation prevailed even in my memory, when unions and politicians fought automation. Actually, they still do.

The fact is that it takes many fewer workers to make the same amount of stuff than it did a generation ago. I used to work at cement company loading bags. My job is gone forever. But I am much better off today than I would have been or than my father was. I remember the “good old days” but my memory is better than some others. Life sucked. I worked 12 hour days in really dirty conditions. The bags weighted 94lbs. Nobody has this kind of job anymore and it is a good thing.

I believe strongly in education and retraining. This means that we all have to adapt. We cannot merely demand that we get jobs or that we get to keep the jobs we have and do them the same way. Unions have been very inflexible. They represent the status quo and usually protect the worst workers the most.

We should put unions in the same place as our Elvis Albums and 57 Chevy. They were great back then, but conditions have changed and their time is mostly gone.

Posted by: C&J at December 15, 2012 2:15 PM
Comment #358962

C&J,

I’m calling BS on all that post above. Your inclusion of Hostess as an example just shows that you either a) don’t know what you are talking about, or b) know what you are talking about and are being dishonest with yourself, us, or both.

Besides, if the right keeps making moves against labor and the middle class, it won’t matter what they think. As the percentage of the population who supports current conservative policies becomes smaller and smaller, those on the right will find themselves on a continually shrinking island. They will find it more and more difficult to hold their ground simply because the numbers will be against them.

You can argue till you are blue in the face, how wrong these masses of pissed off middle class and poor are. So? Who are the elites here? Prepare.

Posted by: LibRick at December 16, 2012 10:42 AM
Comment #358963

LibRick

You have no right to “call bull shit.” Is it not true that Hostess was driven out of business by tough union rules? That is certainly the proximate cause.

Unions are obsolete. They no longer help average working people. They help established working people for a while, i.e. until their jobs disappear.

I am not sure about these “masses of pissed off people”. We saw masses in tea party rallies. They were pissed off, but in what direction? We saw masses in Wisconsin reject a recall against Walker. We saw a bunch of losers take over OWS and the movement become one of bums and weirdos.

People are pissed off, but against whom and why?

I don’t stand for the rich or the established. I am for people who work and try to get ahead. I want to help the poor become not poor. I dislike the non-workers no matter where they are.

Many among the poor today are parasites. They don’t work very much and demand stuff from others. They have no right to be pissed off at people like me. I don’t really fear an insurrection by them. What are they going to do? You cannot go on strike if you don’t work and I figure most of them are too lazy and shiftless to sustain a movement. In fact, isn’t that what OWS showed?

WE people who work, save, do our duty to our country and take care of ourselves are the ones who make this country work. If the numbers of non-working people grows large enough to overwhelm us, indeed we will lose, but so will everybody else.

Posted by: C&J at December 16, 2012 11:26 AM
Comment #358966

You think that masses of people are non-workers???? Get your head out of the sand, Mittster! This narrative by the right wing propaganda machine has taken hold well, don’t you think?

As to Hostess’s union being the cause of the companies bankruptcy… yes… BS. Go check it out. The company actually stole retirement funds from the union to fund part of the company… all while assigning themselves lucrative bonuses and huge salaries! And who is in charge of company strategies??? the unions??? The unions decided to keep making unhealthy snacks while the rest of the world focused on better nutrition. Still Hostess maintains a huge market and a very well preserved and respected brand. NO.. the unions are not the cause of the financial troubles of Hostess and to take the position that they are is to be taken in by the nightmarish fantasy of the rightwing misinformation campaign.

EOM

Posted by: LibRick at December 16, 2012 11:47 AM
Comment #358978

LibRick

I think most of the working people are not union members and do not want to be.

I think that the 20% (I clearly stated the number) people with the lowest income do little or no productive work and live off the rest of us. This may or may not be considered an injustice, but if it is an injustice WE the productive people are the ones who are aggrieved.

You think you speak for the workers. I have earned my money all my life. I grew up in a blue collar family. We WERE all union members when I was growing up; today few of us are. We don’t need to be and don’t want to be.

The left increasingly speaks for the non-working class. This is a big problem when people think it easier to prosper by voting than by working.

Re Hostess - “Still Hostess maintains a huge market and a very well preserved and respected brand.” Exactly. Why would anyone interested in making money want to abandon that? The only answer is that something is making it harder to make money despite such advantages.

It is not the salaries that make unions bad. It is the work rules that prevent efficiencies and keep using old methods and technologies. Car makes in Tennessee and Kentucky can make cars people want to buy at prices they are willing to pay w/o bailouts. Why is that?

Posted by: C&J at December 16, 2012 3:27 PM
Comment #358980

LibRick

PS - I was a member of the Longshoreman’s union when I was a young man.

I was a voluntary member of a union for more than twenty years, until I quick after telling the union leader to go F-himself. What was the cause? I wrote in a public forum that I thought that I (we) were paid enough for what we did and generally had a sweet life and shouldn’t complain. He thought this was offensive and told me so. It got worse. Now I am no longer a union member and I don’t think they want me back.

My first run in with unions came when I was only 20. I simply asked why I had to pay initiation fees again (for the third time). A couple of guys with big forearms showed up to see me and told me not to “ask no questions about da union”. They told me a story about a guy who has asked a lot of question and unfortunately was killed in a hunting accident. Since I was not an active hunter, I wonder why they gave me tips about hunting safety, but I am sure they had their reasons. Of course, that was nigh on thirty year ago; unions may have changed.

Posted by: C&J at December 16, 2012 3:43 PM
Post a comment