If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Mich. Democrats: If you pass this, you will not reason with us, you cannot control us. There shall be chaos in the streets. Cats and dogs living together. Muslims and Jews breaking bread. Chaos, utter chaos   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 526
    More: Amusing, Democrats, John Dingell, Muslims and Jews, Michigan Republicans, union shops  
•       •       •

4996 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



526 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 02:29:40 PM

Mrtraveler01: Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.


It's just... everyone always rags on the South. Everyone there is stupid, everyone there is fat etc. I just can't help but feel there's a tinge of racism in these accusations.
 
2012-12-11 02:31:14 PM

qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?


That and Ohio is not a right to work state and has a lower unemployment rate than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

Can't explain that!
 
2012-12-11 02:31:31 PM

Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.

It's just... everyone always rags on the South. Everyone there is stupid, everyone there is fat etc. I just can't help but feel there's a tinge of racism in these accusations.


"Stupid" and "fat" are now racist epithets?
 
2012-12-11 02:32:35 PM

Mrtraveler01: qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?

That and Ohio is not a right to work state and has a lower unemployment rate than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

Can't explain that!


So you are saying that a business that meets current demand with its current workforce will hire more people without an increase in demand? Why do you believe this to be true?
 
2012-12-11 02:32:40 PM

Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.

It's just... everyone always rags on the South. Everyone there is stupid, everyone there is fat etc. I just can't help but feel there's a tinge of racism in these accusations.


It isn't racist to point out that the south is generally poor, more obese and less educated and also has a higher concentration of African Americans. It's just factual.
 
2012-12-11 02:32:46 PM

Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Yes, it's all black people who are fat. I've never in my entire life met a fat white Southerner.

It's just... everyone always rags on the South. Everyone there is stupid, everyone there is fat etc. I just can't help but feel there's a tinge of racism in these accusations.


Racism does have quite a history in the South. 

But I've been to the South (recently places like LA, TN, AR, and MS).

And you still couldn't pay me enough money to move to these states.
 
2012-12-11 02:33:52 PM

Weaver95: Leeds:
Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary./i>

so what happens when your boss decides that you cost too much? he fires you and then hires 4 or 5 H1B visa workers to do your job...but he keeps the union workers because he can't get rid of them without tanking the corporate profits for the quarter.

hey, the boss made money right? yay capitalism!


I have him on ignore, but he's typical of glib libertarians. He think his labor is so special and valued when the fact is that his boss (if he's in a large organization at least) doesn't even know he exists. If he does, he'll take the chance that some Russian or Mexican will be more desperate to produce the extra value and will riff Leeds without even a thought.
 
2012-12-11 02:34:11 PM

qorkfiend: Mrtraveler01: qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?

That and Ohio is not a right to work state and has a lower unemployment rate than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

Can't explain that!

So you are saying that a business that meets current demand with its current workforce will hire more people without an increase in demand? Why do you believe this to be true?


No, I'm just adding onto the argument that RTW will increase job growth in MI all by itself.

But you're right, unless there's additional demand, there's no need for those additional jobs.
 
2012-12-11 02:35:02 PM

GAT_00: I, uh, I did a whole bunch of number crunching using my own math NO YOU CAN'T SEE IT NOBODY CAN SEE IT and it's clear, uh, that we'll all be better if anyone in a union died in a fire.


You really are a troll. Last week you accused me of only siding with the GOP in the first Michigan RTW thread. When I posted every post in the last 2 months where I bashed the GOP you went silent in the thread.

As for the stats, you can look it up yourself as I'm at work in my highly paid non-union job and I can be terminated for any reason. The point is was making is that you can't really correlate success or failure based on the statistics from the BLS website. People can and will spin the stats either way to fit their goals. There's some cases to be made for RTW and some cases against RTW based on the stats. Because the stats don't clearly line up in one way or another, you can't say it will be a definite success or a failure.
 
2012-12-11 02:36:07 PM

Mrtraveler01: No, I'm just adding onto the argument that RTW will increase job growth in MI all by itself is an incredibly stupid notion to have.


FTFM
 
2012-12-11 02:37:35 PM
Wow, seems like the FARK independents are done mourning their Romney loss and have returned in this thread. Good for them. Your philosophy is sill dying though and things like this are just hastening the demise. Have fun until a referendum reverses it.
 
2012-12-11 02:39:36 PM

amiable: Wow, seems like the FARK independents are done mourning their Romney loss and have returned in this thread. Good for them. Your philosophy is sill dying though and things like this are just hastening the demise. Have fun until a referendum reverses it.


Yeah, I don't see how Snyder is going to get reelected now after pretending to be a moderate for the past few years.
 
2012-12-11 02:42:07 PM

qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?


That's just silly.

Michigan tax payers get a break. The state becomes more competitive in the fight for new businesses.

Are you suggesting that Michigan owning the mid-west crowns for Unemployment and Unionization is a coincidence?
 
2012-12-11 02:43:13 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Are you suggesting that Michigan owning the mid-west crowns for Unemployment and Unionization is a coincidence?


Ohio has an unemployment rate of 6.9% which is lower than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

How do you explain that?
 
2012-12-11 02:43:56 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: Zeb Hesselgresser: qorkfiend: jaybeezey: The state is in a mess.

What mess would this be that is entirely solved by eliminating collective bargaining for a certain subset of unions?

Highest unemployment rate in the mid-west.

Eliminating collective bargaining solves that problem in what way? Are you suggesting that businesses will hire more people than they need simply because collective bargaining has been eliminated?

That's just silly.

Michigan tax payers get a break. The state becomes more competitive in the fight for new businesses.

Are you suggesting that Michigan owning the mid-west crowns for Unemployment and Unionization is a coincidence?


Unless you can prove a strong correlation between the two, yes, it remains coincidental.
 
2012-12-11 02:46:48 PM

Leeds: I don't know if anyone' has pointed it out yet, but it's a done deal.

Workers' rights have been restored in Michigan.
Workers have the right to mooch off of the Union in Michigan


FTFY ;)
 
2012-12-11 02:47:24 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Bloody William: Why is this called "right-to-work?" It sounds like the sickest twisting of words considering what it does.

Because conservatives are master con-artists? Example: calling themselves "pro-life" as if anyone was "anti-life" other Darkseid from Superman.


Like the Affordable Care Act?
 
2012-12-11 02:49:13 PM

Job Creator: Weaver95: Leeds:
Union workers are lazy. I am not. I can create more value for the company, ergo I can bargain for a higher salary./i>

so what happens when your boss decides that you cost too much? he fires you and then hires 4 or 5 H1B visa workers to do your job...but he keeps the union workers because he can't get rid of them without tanking the corporate profits for the quarter.

hey, the boss made money right? yay capitalism!

I have him on ignore, but he's typical of glib libertarians. He think his labor is so special and valued when the fact is that his boss (if he's in a large organization at least) doesn't even know he exists. If he does, he'll take the chance that some Russian or Mexican will be more desperate to produce the extra value and will riff Leeds without even a thought.


This what kills me about people like him. They truly believe the world works in a way it just doesn't and when that world screws them over they blame all the wrong people. Let's just suppose the best case scenario: that the work he does somehow manages to let him obviously differentiate his effort and productivity from that of his peers. And let's further even grant him the notion that a benevolent manager will identify his hard work and reward him for it with higher pay, benefits, whatever.

Even in that best case scenario, all he's managed to do is become a nail sticking out of the company org chart. Someone several level above the factory flaw will create a spreadsheet showing labor costs per unit of production and note this better-compensated employee is an anomaly that adds an average of 1/10th cent of extra labor cost to each unit shipped. He doesn't know about his man's sterling qualities, heroic productivity and incredible gumption and dedication, he just sees a generic unit of workforce that can be replaced with a cheaper one.

So a couple calls get made, hero-worker gets canned just before his retirement options vest and replaced with a kid just out of school with nominally the same qualifications he had but who is willing to work a lot cheaper. The middle manager gets a pat on the back from the CEO, and the worker who was fired for doing such a great job is calling into Rush Limbaugh saying how the Obama Administration's health Care plan cost him his job and it was OBVIOUSLY affirmative action that caused the company to replace him with a Hispanic kid half his age who clearly wasn't as qualified as him...
 
2012-12-11 02:49:23 PM

Il Douchey: Job Creator:It's because the unions are responsible for the 5 feet of snow and sub-freezing temps in union states. Right-to-work eliminates that.

If bad weather is what's causing them to flee, why didn't it prevent them from setting up there in the first place?

/Also, people with productive ability are fleeing the beautiful state of California in droves


Ever heard of air conditioning? Your name is apt by the way.
 
2012-12-11 02:51:02 PM

Mrtraveler01: The thing I hate about RTW is that it essentially drains the power from the unions because people would be able to enjoy the same perks that the union provides without having to pay dues. That is until they get so weak and powerless that they essentially fade out leaving employers in total control.

It really should be called "Right-To-Be-A-Freeloader but then again that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.


The thing you hate about RTW is the entire farking point, and WHY conservatives and business want to pass RTW.
 
2012-12-11 02:52:17 PM
So if RTW is the only way to lower unemployment, how come non-RTW states like Minnesota (5.8%), Deleware (6.8%), Ohio (6.9%), Massachusetts (6.6%), Maryland (6.7%) and Colorado (7.9%) have lower unemployment than RTW-states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama?

Link
 
2012-12-11 02:53:09 PM

giftedmadness: I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?


Choice is only for killing babbys.
 
2012-12-11 02:53:36 PM

RminusQ: Mrtraveler01: The thing I hate about RTW is that it essentially drains the power from the unions because people would be able to enjoy the same perks that the union provides without having to pay dues. That is until they get so weak and powerless that they essentially fade out leaving employers in total control.

It really should be called "Right-To-Be-A-Freeloader but then again that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

The thing you hate about RTW is the entire farking point, and WHY conservatives and business want to pass RTW.


I know, and the fact that supporters try to shy away from that aspects says it all.
 
2012-12-11 02:53:52 PM

giftedmadness: I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?


I know this lib is just fine with giving workers the choice of whether or not to join a union.

What I'm not fine with is forcing the union to provide their services to that person free of charge should they choose not to pay dues.
 
2012-12-11 02:57:06 PM
ITT: Conservatives don't understand the free-rider concept and why using "worker choice" is a thinly veiled excuse to get rid of unions. No ampunt of explaining will help them understand, they don't want to.
 
2012-12-11 02:58:27 PM

Leeds:
You and I both know that employers will offer people more money to join as a worker than as a union member. I have seen no evidence that the union contract has to serve as a cap for the benefits offered to someone who wants instead to be a good worker.


See "the 19th Century" and read "The Jungle." FFS have you even read a history book?
 
2012-12-11 02:58:32 PM

Mrtraveler01: Zeb Hesselgresser: Are you suggesting that Michigan owning the mid-west crowns for Unemployment and Unionization is a coincidence?

Ohio has an unemployment rate of 6.9% which is lower than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.

How do you explain that?


Link

It's Historical, the leads me to believe it's something in the water.
 
2012-12-11 03:03:10 PM

Mrtraveler01: So if RTW is the only way to lower unemployment, how come non-RTW states like Minnesota (5.8%), Deleware (6.8%), Ohio (6.9%), Massachusetts (6.6%), Maryland (6.7%) and Colorado (7.9%) have lower unemployment than RTW-states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama?

Link


And 9 out of the top 11 states with the lowest unemployment are RTW states. See you can spin the numbers however you like. You have a bunch of states with high unemployment that are RTW as well. It's not definitive no matter how you slice it. I was looking for some clear cut numbers one way or another and there's just nothing that I found definitive (though some may state that jobs are growing faster in RTW states, I couldn't find a good source to validate that.

What this boils down to (IMHO) is nothing more than politics. The GOP sees that union dues are funding Democrats...and they're in a position to weaken that advantage.
 
2012-12-11 03:04:45 PM

jst3p: o5iiawah: jst3p: poor

Poor is relative to cost of living. How much more do I have to repeat that?

When you need $90k in NY just to get by, $33k in Alabama sounds like a pittance.

Words mean things:

For example, for a four-person family unit with two children, the 2010 poverty threshold is $22.113. For one- or two-person family units, the poverty thresholds differ by age; the 2010 threshold for one individual under age 65 is $11,344, whereas for an individual 65 or over it is $10,458.

Link

That is broke wherever you are. It isn't "well I can have the same standard of living as someone earning 90k in NY" it is "on public assistance so I can eat".


[www.veteranstoday.com image 763x610]

There is a clump of very broke people, and it is in the south. 

The cost of living is low in Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas too, they aren't as red. Your argument is invalid.


Whether individual, single-family, or retiree your graph still doesn't adjust for cost of living.

A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.

Mrtraveler01: That and Ohio is not a right to work state and has a lower unemployment rate than Indiana which is a right-to-work state.


Probably has nothing to do with the terms of the auto bailout stipulating that businesses in Ohio get preferred bailout funds over less blue states like Indiana, right?

Mrtraveler01: That or it's the weather. Why do you think most northerners are moving to FL? It sure isn't the laughable joke that is their public school system.


Again, you're ignoring the fact that the so-called "Great" schools up north come at a price -
I have friends and family all over NY and NJ. Their property taxes are more than my mortgage for the same sized home.
The funny thing about the schools is parents can make them better if they arent at work all day and night trying to pay their taxes and afford COL
 
2012-12-11 03:05:48 PM

slayer199:

What this boils down to (IMHO) is nothing more than politics. The GOP sees that union dues are funding Democrats...and they're in a position to weaken that advantage.


and it has nothing to do with the taxpayers? really?
 
2012-12-11 03:06:02 PM

Leeds: amiable:

Perhaps this is why you and I aren't seeing eye to eye. You are stuck in the 1800's and I'm dealing with the hear and now.

Look up OSHA, minimum wage, standardized work hours, the ADA, etc. That should catch you up.


You literally just cited a litany of social changes that would not have happened but for unions. /facepalm
 
2012-12-11 03:07:02 PM

Leeds: Why is it that the liberal viewpoint about labor is always focused entirely on production line workers at mega-factories?


Possibly because it's the production line workers at mega-factories that stand to gain the most - notably wages, benefits, and job security - from unionization.
 
2012-12-11 03:07:11 PM

giftedmadness: I thought libs were all about choice. This law would give workers the option of turning down entry into a union. What is wrong with giving them a choice?


It's cute that you think the corporations are going to let their workers unionize after this passes.
 
2012-12-11 03:08:27 PM

amiable: Leeds:Do you not remember the fact that the Republicans were only given the hundreds of pages that constituted this bill hours before they were forced to vote on it? Do you not remember Nancy Pelosi refusing to allow people to read the damn thing? Or that she said that "we have to pass this shiate today, and you have to pass it to be allowed to read it" ???

If you aren't on crack you may as well be. It might make you smarter./i>

I remember the republicans hurf-blurfing about a proposal that was essentially the same thing Mitt Romney proposed in Massachusetts and was originally put forward by the heritage foundation. But I'm a liberal so I remember "stuff that actually happened" as opposed it "BS fox news talking points." Funny that.


I chortled at "hurf-blurfing".
 
2012-12-11 03:09:04 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: and it has nothing to do with the taxpayers? really?


Your point?
 
2012-12-11 03:09:22 PM

Mrtraveler01: So if RTW is the only way to lower unemployment . . .


Who said this? Whar?
 
2012-12-11 03:11:04 PM

Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."


Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.
 
2012-12-11 03:11:31 PM

mrshowrules: Education has a sharp negative correlation with States with right-to-work laws and a clear positive correlation to States who support union rights.


Which is interesting, as outside of tenured academics, very few educated people are in unions in this country.

/college grad
//pro union
 
2012-12-11 03:13:38 PM

o5iiawah: Whether individual, single-family, or retiree your graph still doesn't adjust for cost of living.

A person making $40k in NY is for all intents and purposes poor but isn't labeled as such and (doesn't) enjoy(s) the same quality of life as someone in Alabama making $12k who is labeled as poor.

They are probably affording just enough to get by, or arent getting by. and probably need public assistance when it comes to transportation passes and energy credits.


You could have just asked jst3p to explain what the poverty line and poverty rate are since you are completely clueless about them. He seems like a decent guy, I'm sure he would have helped you out.
 
2012-12-11 03:15:14 PM
Meh, fark em. Any state (including my own NC) that choose to put republicans in charge of both houses and governorship deserve what they get. The ONLY way these dumbass trailerpark crackers are going to learn to stop voting against their self-interests is to rub their noses in shiat for a decade or two.
 
2012-12-11 03:18:28 PM

Dwight_Yeast: mrshowrules: Education has a sharp negative correlation with States with right-to-work laws and a clear positive correlation to States who support union rights.

Which is interesting, as outside of tenured academics, very few educated people are in unions in this country.

/college grad
//pro union


I think it's because jobs requiring high levels of personal expertise are less prone to the problems - low wages and benefits, poor working conditions, job security - that provide the impetus for unionization in the first place.
 
2012-12-11 03:18:44 PM

KellyX: Seems to me if I were the Union leaders, I'd just make sure in the next contract that all union workers get X% more than workers that aren't part of the union, that would encourage them to join and pay their dues.


So you would be in favor of a union contract that gurantees the company will have a huge incentive to go out of their way to hire non-union workers? I always thought union people were dumb, I just didn't realize the extent of the problem.
 
2012-12-11 03:20:51 PM

amiable: ITT: Conservatives don't understand the free-rider concept and why using "worker choice" is a thinly veiled excuse to get rid of unions. No amount of explaining will help them understand, they don't want to.


Correct. "Worker choice" isn't an organic argument, it's right out of think tank focus groups. No one with a working brain really believes that nonsense.
 
2012-12-11 03:21:45 PM

amiable: Leeds:
You and I both know that employers will offer people more money to join as a worker than as a union member. I have seen no evidence that the union contract has to serve as a cap for the benefits offered to someone who wants instead to be a good worker.

See "the 19th Century" and read "The Jungle." FFS have you even read a history book?


History has a well-known liberal bias, as it's a record of what actually happened.
 
2012-12-11 03:22:37 PM

udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.


Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.
 
2012-12-11 03:25:49 PM

OgreMagi: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.


I'll make that list:



/end
Businesses go out of business not because of unions, but because their products and services aren't competitive in the market.
 
2012-12-11 03:25:56 PM

amiable: Uh.. obama ran on implementing Obamacare


Uh.. no, he ran against the things that eventually became Obamacare. He didn't need any "Republican ideas" in it because not a single Republican voted for it.
 
2012-12-11 03:26:31 PM

OgreMagi: Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business.


Alright, go ahead and get started, we're listening...

Hint - if your opening includes "Hostess", you're in for a surprise.
 
2012-12-11 03:26:34 PM

OgreMagi: udhq: Leeds: udhq: You also neglect the plain fact that if the service they [Unions] provided was not valuable, they wouldn't exist. Simple as that.

You do realize that hosts and parasites are not one and the same, right?

Your comment is akin to saying: "If the Aids Virus was detrimental to human health, it wouldn't exist."

Go ahead, prove me wrong by citing a single instance where a union entered a workforce and wages/bennies/conditions decreased.

Once again, I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Make up a list of all businesses that closed because the union demands were to much and they went out of business. Going from $xx to zero is definitely a descrease in wages/bennies/conditions. I'm sure the unions don't count those businesses, though. It might make them look bad.


Why don't you go ahead and make up that list? Surely it would trivial for you to provide countless examples of something you apparently think happens quite often.
 
2012-12-11 03:30:16 PM
Right to work laws, combined with the federal requirement for unions to represent all workers, allow free riders. Free riders reduce the ROI to unions from lawful negotiation. Reducing ROI effectively decreases demand for lawful means of negotiation, but without reduction of the underlying demand for negotiating social utility. Since there is a positive cross-elasticity of demand between unlawful means and lawful means, decrease in ROI for lawful implies a ceteris paribus consequence of union members increasingly resorting to violent thuggery.

Yeah, this seems likely to end poorly.
 
Displayed 50 of 526 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report