Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Detroit_News)   Union members in Michigan engage in polite discussion with those who have an opposing viewpoint. Just kidding, they beat a Fox News reporter, sucker punch him, then collapse a tent on top of women and old people   (detroitnews.com) divider line 142
    More: Asinine, sucker punches, Fox News  
•       •       •

7920 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2012 at 3:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-12 12:03:27 AM  
8 votes:
People should punch Fox news reporters every single chance they get.
2012-12-11 09:53:35 PM  
8 votes:
Some people don't want to participate in your little scam, you stupid unions.
2012-12-12 02:46:05 AM  
6 votes:

log_jammin: Weaver95: no, i'm saying emotions were already running hot. Fox news only made it worse.

Yes. of course they did. but that's not an excuse.


it was an entirely expected response tho. one might even conclude that a new agency had a vested interest in creating a situation that would look good on camera for the 11 o'clock news.

Personally, I think Fox New walked dangerously close to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, then filmed the resulting chaos for the ratings boost.
2012-12-11 10:38:13 PM  
6 votes:

trivial use of my dark powers: OK, union guys, stop hitting people unless they hit you first.


Especially guys with cameras who are intentionally trolling you so you'll hit them.
2012-12-11 09:54:09 PM  
6 votes:

homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.


I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.
2012-12-11 11:20:01 PM  
5 votes:

Lsherm: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

Technically in the slide show:

[img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.


Lsherm: GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.

Technically in the slide show:

[img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

With the caption:

A man in an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union jacket punches Fox News reporter Steven Crowder in the face outside the pro-Right-to-Work tent of Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by wealthy private donors.


More likely to be true then, but until I see people vouching that this guy is a member of that union, I still refuse to completely believe it. I have no trouble believing that Fox would stage that to discredit the protesters.
2012-12-11 10:02:21 PM  
5 votes:
Workers had to die to get union protections to begin with. May as well return the favor.
2012-12-11 09:47:49 PM  
5 votes:
Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.
2012-12-12 07:37:44 AM  
4 votes:
Had the reporter been a liberal who was attacked by a group of conservatives you farklibs would have cried foul.
2012-12-12 07:37:42 AM  
4 votes:

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


What about the rights of workers who choose not to be in a union? How is forcing people to join a union and pay union dues against their wishes supporting their rights?
2012-12-12 07:16:57 AM  
4 votes:
Interesting thread. Seems the pro-union folks don't really know squat about the laws that were just signed but that doesn't prevent them from ranting on about them.

Neither of these laws; either the one focused on public sector unions or the one focused on private sector unions, prevents anyone from joining a union. Neither does anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present. Neither attempts to de-certify a single union. All these laws do is make union membership an option instead of a mandate.

Early in my working career, I was a member of two different labor unions. Even back in the 70s, it was painfully obvious to me that the union did not have my best interest nor the best interest of any worker in the shop at heart. When it was time for contract negotiations, the union reps spent scant time and effort on wages and benefits for workers while spending endless hours fighting for tweaks to contract language that would enhance the union's control over work rules and grievance processes. 40 years ago, it was obvious to me that unions had ceased to care about workers. They cared only about their own power and influence.

Over the years, I managed or consulted with several union shops. During that time I negotiated with locals of UAW, Teamsters, Foundry workers, Machinists' union, and a couple other unions. In every situation, it was abundantly clear to me that I was much more concerned about fair employee compensation and benefits than any union negotiator was. There were numerous instances where a change in work rules would have put more money in workers' pockets but eliminated the reason for grievance procedures that the company wasn't even going to try to challenge. The unions always opted to keep grievance procedures in place to justify the existence of more union stewards and other time and productivity wasting items rather than just agree to pay workers and eliminate the union from the process.

With unions, it's all about how much money they can extract from workers. When Obama came to Michigan, he claimed that these laws were all about a political agenda instead of economics. He's right. But it's about the liberal Democrat political agenda, in lockstep with unions. Unions have become little more than a vehicle for taking money out of the pockets of union members and funneling it to the DNC. In return, Democrats support union efforts to extract more money from the workers and the public.

These laws simply give workers a choice - to send their hard-earned wages to the DNC or not.  Of course, in union minds, that translates to justification to violent protest.
2012-12-12 07:00:31 AM  
4 votes:
Here's a truth for the union hacks: Right to Work laws give workers a choice between whether or not one joins a union. Many times the absence of such laws means workers are forced into unions and required to pay dues against their will, eliminating their choice. Since choice = freedom, then Right to Work laws are more American than forced coercion. No wonder why unions get the "commie" label......
2012-12-12 02:48:33 AM  
4 votes:

Relatively Obscure:
After the EMTs clean you up and remove that chrome handlebar someone stuffed up your nose, i'll come by the emergency room and pick you up. then we'll discuss the difference between 'theory' and 'practice'.

What I said still wasn't a theory, your comparison is lame, and these hypothetical 'bikers' would still be wrong while I'd be a douche for randomly insulting people. 

But hey, good job with the "sparky" jab. I can feel the burn.


you really don't think Fox News might have ramped up the violence on purpose? because I certainly wouldn't put it past 'em to taunt a bunch of already pissed off union workers just so they'd have something to run in their next news segment.
2012-12-11 10:33:03 PM  
4 votes:
I'm of two minds on this:

You shouldn't hit people just for being annoying.

OTOH, I come from a long line of coal miners on both sides of the family and damn near lost a great uncle during the whole Matewan debacle. I know what happened in the mines pre-union. Unions can be irritating but I firmly believe that they are much better than the alternative.

OK, union guys, stop hitting people unless they hit you first.
2012-12-11 09:49:18 PM  
4 votes:

video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.


I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.
2012-12-12 08:13:29 AM  
3 votes:
I'm confused. I thought being pro choice was good
2012-12-12 07:36:07 AM  
3 votes:
So, if some southern town said you had to join the KKK in order to work for the city, that would be OK, right?

There's really no difference. Well, except that unions are more prone to violence than the KKK.
2012-12-12 05:38:59 AM  
3 votes:

GAT_00: Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.


assets.nydailynews.com

"We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it"
2012-12-12 04:06:25 AM  
3 votes:
Put down your farking pearls, nancies. People get punched sometimes. It's not the end of the world.

You'd be pissed too if a group of shady politicians just gave you a $5,300 a year paycut AFTER they had been voted out of office. And then to be harassed by some corporate stooge from a propaganda arm that convinces millions of Americans that you're the reason for everything that's wrong with this country...let's just be thankful that no guns or knives were involved.
2012-12-12 03:57:07 AM  
3 votes:

NobleHam: "Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.

If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it."



Yeah - that's totally what workers are threatened with today.


NobleHam: "The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now..."


...which have since been permanently enshrined as law in the labor code and are guaranteed. So, what precious rights is the Proletariat violently fighting for now? (Note: being able to force people to join a union and pay dues before they can get a job is not a right.)
2012-12-12 02:52:00 AM  
3 votes:

Relatively Obscure:
And again. If you're the sort of clown who reacts to hurt feelings with violence, stay home and don't get married.


And again, that's 99.99% of the human race. to include you, I might add.
2012-12-12 02:43:21 AM  
3 votes:

Relatively Obscure:

In the real world, speech is a right and committing battery isn't.


tell ya what sparky - you get good and liquored up and go down to your local biker bar. while there, make sure you personally insult each and every biker in the bar. Because hey - why not right? first amendment! whoopee!

After the EMTs clean you up and remove that chrome handlebar someone stuffed up your nose, i'll come by the emergency room and pick you up. then we'll discuss the difference between 'theory' and 'practice'.
2012-12-12 01:23:50 AM  
3 votes:

Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.

I think you can and do sometimes.


Was it smart? Was it appropriate? Of course not. But fark it, those people need punched in the face for what they're doing to the country. I wouldn't hesitate to convict the guy for assault, but these people are the enemy of the country. They are a big force in driving all this shiat that is also driving this country straight into the gutter. A punch to the face is well deserved.
2012-12-12 12:35:35 AM  
3 votes:
When people's livelihoods are on the line, don't expect them to give up without a fight. Gun-waving Rascal-bound retarded Randroids should at the very least possess enough capacity for human empathy to understand that.

But they don't. Hence tardmitter, or more likely trollmitter.
2012-12-11 10:20:21 PM  
3 votes:
Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.
2012-12-12 12:14:44 PM  
2 votes:

Void_Beavis: You know what? I'm done here. Onto more important stuff.

People are going to think whatever they want to think, even if the truth is otherwise.

Union membership is NEVER compulsory. Since unions factor in dues to ALL compensation negotiations, the workers aren't paying a dime for membership. The company pays for it as part of the compensation package and it works like a free benefit that everyone gets. Unions hold elections for their leaders, so they are actually democratic in nature. Unions hold regular meetings so the representatives can hear and collect the opinions of its members. They are held accountable to whom they represent. And if they are not corrupt, they work to improve the relationship between company and employee to be more profitable for both parties.

I don't like how unions tow the line for the Democrat party. Democrats may have labor friendly policies, but also have extremely skewed policies on fiscal responsibility for the country as a whole. Additionally, they tow the line for a liberal social agenda that does not match what most union members hold as core values.

Unions do not support Republicans because they are so far into the pockets of large corporations who value profit over people. At the same time, Republicans support a socially conservative position which actually favors most union rank-and-file core principles. However, this just seems to be a convenient catalyst for Republicans to get elected by the general public, since their position on profits puts them at odds with most of middle class.

I hate our two party system for this reason. It forced its members to take unreasonable stances which don't reflect the needs of those it represents. Democrats who support more social conservative positions are silenced and removed from power. Republicans who want better wages and jobs for their constituents are summarily tossed from power.

All the while, we see ever increasing "religious wars of ideals" being waged between the two, while mid ...


Guess you won't mind of a red state signs a bill into law requiring employers to withhold $900 a year from all employees, to be used to fund Republican campaigns.

I mean, your freakin argument is "wah, people should NEVER have a choice, they HAVE to join a union and pay dues!". What kind of BS Nazi Hitler stuff is that?
2012-12-12 11:08:25 AM  
2 votes:
there's a difference between "at will" employment and "right to work" people...
2012-12-12 11:04:32 AM  
2 votes:

jso2897: mwfark: Here's a truth for the union hacks: Right to Work laws give workers a choice between whether or not one joins a union. Many times the absence of such laws means workers are forced into unions and required to pay dues against their will, eliminating their choice. Since choice = freedom, then Right to Work laws are more American than forced coercion. No wonder why unions get the "commie" label......

Gotta love these people who call theselves "conservatives" these days - they claim to oppose government meddling in the private sector - until it's a matter of having the governemnt arbitrarily abrogate a contract between two private parties to obtain a result they deem desirable.
So much for "moral consistency" on the part of "conservatives".


First, I'm not a conservative... I'm libertarian. Secondly, while there may exist a contract between a union and an employer, an individual employee who wishes not to be roped into a union should not be forced to do so, simply because we live in friggin' free country. I realize this notion is difficult for some people to understand, but even if you think that union membership is in the "best interest" for someone, that is not a determination for you or the union to make for that person. Believe it or not, some people still value freedom and pride themselves on individuality and independent thought and do not ascribe to your herd mentality. In fact, I'll go so far as to say:
I support VOLUNTARY participation in unions but do not support COMPULSORY participation. Vive la liberté!
2012-12-12 10:37:14 AM  
2 votes:
if you make union membership voluntary rather then forced, it makes the union responsible to the workers, not the workers responsible to the union

the union HAS to listen to all the workers and has to come to some accommodation with them if it wants their money
2012-12-12 09:41:12 AM  
2 votes:

Maximum Snark: Why do all of this in a close door session and do it as fast as possible (the fastest a bill has ever been passed in Michigan history btw)?


Huh? It was read into the record in January 2011.

23 months to pass isn't fast.
2012-12-12 08:52:57 AM  
2 votes:

LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.

People who actually work for a living: One of many things Republicans can't stand.
.
.
blah, blah, blah The Republicans are the one's passing laws allowing people to work, the unions are fighting to prevent people from working at workplaces that have a union unles they pay shake down money. I have many friends with small companies that have been kicked off of jobs because their 3-4 man company wasn't paying dues to union lawyers.

Fark you buddy.

FTFY. You're free to work a non-union job. But if your workplace has a union and you aren't a part of it, you're a parasite. Unless, of course, you sign a waiver preventing yourself from receiving the wages and benefits a union negotiates for.


No Waiver needed. I've worked all my life in non union jobs. I've never been privy to what the other workers around me make. That's between them and the employer. The point being - this idea that you will get paid the union rates when you are non-union, IS THE BIGGEST RED HERRING BULLSHIAT in the whole debate. If they can differentiate between me and the next guy, they can differentiate between the union and the rest of us. Seen it happen. Memo's about benefits, etc would come out and all were clearly labeled that they only applied to those not represented by contracts.

The idea that everyone in the same shop, or at the same level is automatically gonna get the union rates is monkey-brained imagination. There is no guarantee of that, whatsoever. What I get paid is between me and the company, and not determined by what others, or another group negotiates. Happens all the time.

This is the story that unions tell members in order to hold power over them. I support union's legitimate rights, the right to assemble, and compare notes on their conditions, and to collectively bargain. This is not one of those rights.

Unions represent workers like politicians represent people. And the centralizing of power has the same corrupting effect on either.
2012-12-12 08:30:15 AM  
2 votes:
By the way, one of the reasons Hostess failed?

Drivers were not allowed by the union to deliver bread products, and snack cakes in the same truck. Had to be two separate trucks. Perfect example of union asshattery.

Bottom line, you guys want free, taxpayer funded money to campaign, and you don't care about quality of work, efficiency, or the education of our children. You are against choice, want people forced to join your cause. That is as unamerican as you can get. MI voters decided this matter already, but you won't let it go, you bus in criminals from all over to whine and biatch.

Wah.
2012-12-12 08:18:25 AM  
2 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could?

They can at any time. Also, cite a source for that.


ya, they can leave, but they still have to pay dues,.

once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Nope.

CA alone is over 300 billion underfunded in their pension plans, because of unions. Nationwide that number dwarfs the deficit. How is that working for you? You want free stuff, government funded campaign money, and don't care how much you hurt the country.
2012-12-12 07:38:45 AM  
2 votes:
Oh my God, people will not be FORCED to pay union dues and fund Democrat's campaigns!!!!


Can't believe liberals agree with union thuggery. Thought you were about freedom of choice? Disgusting people, all of you.
2012-12-12 07:11:48 AM  
2 votes:
*sigh* Its ok when democrats use violence but when a republican does it is extremeism. The double standard continues.

/Stay strong Snyder. fark THE UNIONS!
//Keep it up Michigan. I may move back
2012-12-12 06:22:31 AM  
2 votes:
Union rant:

Look, there is a time and a place for unions. No one can look at the history of coal mining and not see that they've done a lot of good. BUT, unions get out of hand farking fast. You know what the east coast ILA is threatening to strike over, effectively shutting down the entire east and gulf coasts shipping? Labor guarantees. Union members literally get paid a minimum of 8 hours per company.
So if you show up to work, work 1 hour unloading 1 ship then work a full 8-hour shift on another ship in a day you get paid for 16 hours. Why? Because they keep shutting down the damn ports to get their way.

When unions are needed, they're great. Unfortunately, unions are rarely NEEDED.
/rant
2012-12-12 05:28:11 AM  
2 votes:

CujoQuarrel: log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.

Arrrggghhhh!!!

"Right to Work" doesn't mean that. Jebus. LOOK IT UP
In a "Right to Work" state you may not be forced to join a union or forced to pay dues to a union in order to get a job. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'firing at anytime'


I normally dont weigh in on the politics tab because its much more fun to read the threadshiatters insane comments and laugh at the childish trolling all over the spectrum, however having worked in a right to work state, and one that is fairly backwards even by that standard (Arizona) I feel I have a compelling reason to weigh in here.

Having worked in Arizona for 17 years I can say definitively that right to work means exactly what the gentlemen you quoted said it means, and the employees remind you of that both when you are first hired and if you ever get written up or disciplined on the job.

They have the right to:
A) fire you at any time
B) fire you for any reason
C) fire you for no reason what so ever

The employers remind you of these facts. What is happening in Michigan is a special case. In Arizona, a right to work state, union dues must be payed by people who are not part of the union regardless (see the teachers union, of who my mother was a teacher, not part of the union and still had to pay dues to). What the Michigan legislator did was strip the mandatory dues payments because it breaks the very structure that gives the unions so much leverage and power. And anyone who tells you this was for economical reasons is lying through their teeth. This was a simple power play for politics and nothing more. Unions overwhelmingly support democrats and fund democrats as one of if not the top donors in most local elections and national elections. Break up unions and you break their political power. The Michigan legislator simply wimped out and called it a "right to work" bill instead of calling what it really is "bust union power so we can win elections easier" bill.

I have no problem with republicans TRYING to put such measures to the public vote, assuming they are legitimately put to public vote. That is how democracy works. However, them ramming it through, on a lame duck session, after most of those guys have been voted out of office, in a closed door shady way, and also using loopholes that make it so that the public cant overturn it on a ballot referendum is just disgusting.

I try to see things from the republican perspective so that I can get a better rounded opinion and I would like to have a true center right and center left party divide but sadly all the republicans seem to be doing lately is going farther and farther out into the deep end of the pool and making me even more ardently democrat then I already was and stifling any real debate. Its very sad. I wonder how many life long democratic voters they are creating with all this nonsense behavior.

Also I fully expect that the next Michigan legislative session's first agenda goal will be to straight up repeal this, and I think that is great. A race to the bottom gets everyone to the bottom and then we all lose. Thank you republicans for once again proving that you are completely incapable of seeing the bigger longer term picture.
2012-12-12 04:43:52 AM  
2 votes:
For some reason, I can't imagine any of the union defenders extending the same benefit of the doubt to TEA Party protesters had they been goaded by reporters and exchanged punches.

Maybe it's just me, but assaulting people for asking questions that annoy you is a douche thing to do and political affiliation should not influence that in any way.
2012-12-12 03:59:26 AM  
2 votes:
so... the people protesting are simply protesting because they dont like their right to be able to force other people to join them being removed?

Are these people americans or communists?
2012-12-12 03:31:08 AM  
2 votes:

violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,


part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.
2012-12-12 03:27:52 AM  
2 votes:
We shouldn't be punching Fox News reporters.

We should be burning them alive in the public square - pour encourager les autres.
2012-12-12 02:35:36 AM  
2 votes:

Relatively Obscure: Weaver95: fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse.

Not arguing that. It's still not okay to play punchadouche on some douche doing little more than being a douche. If you can't control yourself better than that, stay the fark home.


that's a nice theory...but here in the real world, when you piss all over people's rights, treat them unfairly and then come by and taunt 'em for trying to set things right...well, it's understandable when they lash out at the nearest target. the provocation from the GOP is/was/has been extreme. having fox news come by and piss all over the unions was only going to create even further tension.
2012-12-12 02:25:06 AM  
2 votes:

Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: No you couldn't have.

Yes I could have. Sure, many would be as you say, but there are always some who would sound exactly like you just had.


except that GAT has a point - fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse. the local MI Republicans already antagonized the unions and pissed off the local Democrats. then along comes fox news (and a few tea baggers) to jump in and gloat about how great it was that the lame duck session was used by their hero Republicans to ramrod some unpopular legislation through congress and hey, it's just wonderful to see such dirty tricks used to great effect.

i'm actually impressed the local unions showed as much restraint as they did.
2012-12-12 02:03:23 AM  
2 votes:

violentsalvation: Some people don't want to participate in your little scam, you stupid unions.


this has nothing to do with unions. want someone to blame? yell at the GOP. their dirty tricks created this mess. of COURSE it was gonna turn ugly. what did you expect would happen?

i'm not condoning violence but I am saying that this entire disaster was easily avoidable.
2012-12-12 01:37:35 AM  
2 votes:

Relatively Obscure: You could have c/p'd that from a Freep post about a different article.


No you couldn't have. No Freeper would have said that it wasn't appropriate or would consider it assault. I'm not demanding we round people up and put them into camps. Fox went there to gloat about taking people's rights away. You gloat in someone's face about how they just beat you, people tend to punch you in the face. That's a normal, though overly aggressive, response in dozens of scenarios.

log_jammin: so what you are saying is, you can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy, so long as it's your enemy as well. which is all well and good, but be honest about it.


See above. And yeah, if I went to an anti-gay marriage rally and gloated to someone's face about how gays were going to get married and they couldn't stop it, I'd expect to be punched in the face too.
2012-12-12 01:29:22 AM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.

I think you can and do sometimes.

Was it smart? Was it appropriate? Of course not. But fark it, those people need punched in the face for what they're doing to the country. I wouldn't hesitate to convict the guy for assault, but these people are the enemy of the country. They are a big force in driving all this shiat that is also driving this country straight into the gutter. A punch to the face is well deserved.


so what you are saying is, you can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy, so long as it's your enemy as well. which is all well and good, but be honest about it.
2012-12-12 01:18:49 AM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.


I think you can and do sometimes.
2012-12-12 12:17:57 AM  
2 votes:
Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.
2012-12-11 11:04:59 PM  
2 votes:
Funny, none of that is in the link. Nothing about hitting a reporter, and I saw the video of the tent earlier. Didn't look like anyone was in it.

But hey, protesting is bad, but passing a bill in a locked session in the middle of the night without telling anyone is good. That's real democracy - Republican democracy.
2012-12-12 04:32:08 PM  
1 votes:

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


So other people don't have a "Right" to not participate? Funny it seems to me that there is a clause in the Constitution that gives people the right to association. Which should extend to an employer and and employee without the need for the interference from a Union.
2012-12-12 02:24:45 PM  
1 votes:

m2313: Mr. Right: But it's about the liberal Democrat political agenda

And that's where you stopped being credible.
This is about a weak centre-right/mostly right wing neoliberal defense of basic working conditions against an outright fascist attempt to stifle worker's rights.
Earlier someone mentioned how Republicans were called extremists. That's because you're just bigots attacking and crushing people's rights for the sake of fascist domination of America. As much as the Democrats have been reluctant to show spine, it's nice to see an occasional tit-for-tat or pushback in defense against the fascist takeover.


In looking over a few of your posts, it's obvious that you are far too left-wing-crazy to have any kind of discussion with so I'll just point out that you're a radical, left-wing, Kool-aid drinker whose grasp of reality has apparently been gone for some time. But you better be careful. If you're correct that this is an outright fascist attempt to stifle worker's (can you point out which one?) rights, then those same fascists that are apparently dominating America can find you and stifle you as well. Your little tit-for-tat pushback could get you permanently stifled when the fascists grow weary of it!
2012-12-12 01:34:25 PM  
1 votes:

liam76: Mr. Right: liam76: Why don't I? Because it has nothing to do with my point and until you can concede you were flat out wrong in stating this doesn't do "anything to prevent unions from collective bargaining in any company where unions are present" is flat out wrong you are too dishonest or too stupid to entartain a conversation with.

The two laws signed by Snyder do not in any way prevent, halt, or limit collective bargaining by unions.

You are going to triple down on this flavor of stupid?

What part are you too stupid or too dishonest to get?

This law will make it so peopel can get the benefit of unions without paying.

That will drive down union membership.

When union membership is too low collective bargaining won't work.

What part don't you get? Is that too many steps ahead for you to figure out?


Mr. Right: There is nothing dishonest or stupid about stating facts.

No but there is something dishonest and stupid about cramming your head up your ass and ignoring the consequences of this law because the law doesn't directly spell them out.


There is absolutely nothing in the law the limits collective bargaining. If unions do such a lousy job of convincing people that their efforts are worth a couple hours of their wages per month, then unions' effectiveness has gone too far down for these laws to have any effect on union membership.

As to your "steps," you need to check union membership around the country - even in states that are not RTW. Private sector union membership is at an all-time low. Precisely because union members have figured out that unions are simply not worth the cost. Public sector unions thrive because the Democrat Party has, over the years, negotiated outrageous compensation packages for government workers in order that the unions will back Democrats who will negotiate more outrageous compensation packages. And, of course, dues go right back to Democrat-backed political causes.

Unions have apparently convinced their devotees that, without the union, workers are worthless. That may well be true in your case but any company whose management is intelligent enough to actually run a business well values their employees enough to treat them fairly without a union. Check out the Forbes list of "best places to work" and compare it to any union's list of "best companies for union contracts." You're not going to find a lot of crossover.
2012-12-12 01:15:51 PM  
1 votes:

th0th: Oh, yeah, Crowder was the Virtuous Man of the Year earlier this fall for posting about his wedding where he and his wife both kept their virginity until married. He then went on to pretty much troll all people who engaged in premarital sex as immoral sluts, and made it seem like his was the Best Wedding Sex Ever. Even reading the article made everyone I know want to throttle him.

Let's say this bottle of Massengil spring scent represents the normal amount of douchiness in an individual. Taking a sample after strolling through his online articles, Tweets and YouTube videos, it would be a bottle 32 feet high weighing approximately 5 tons.


I agree with your assessment, good Farker. And to those who say it's wrong that Crowder got punched I say: It had to be "God's will" that Crowder got punched in the noggin.

No? Hypocrite much?

i.imgur.com
2012-12-12 01:11:09 PM  
1 votes:
That's about what I'd expect from fascists. Look for the union label.

thegraph.com

focusgear.com
2012-12-12 12:26:08 PM  
1 votes:

Void_Beavis: mwfark: jso2897: mwfark: Here's a truth for the union hacks: Right to Work laws give workers a choice between whether or not one joins a union. Many times the absence of such laws means workers are forced into unions and required to pay dues against their will, eliminating their choice. Since choice = freedom, then Right to Work laws are more American than forced coercion. No wonder why unions get the "commie" label......

Gotta love these people who call theselves "conservatives" these days - they claim to oppose government meddling in the private sector - until it's a matter of having the governemnt arbitrarily abrogate a contract between two private parties to obtain a result they deem desirable.
So much for "moral consistency" on the part of "conservatives".

First, I'm not a conservative... I'm libertarian. Secondly, while there may exist a contract between a union and an employer, an individual employee who wishes not to be roped into a union should not be forced to do so, simply because we live in friggin' free country. I realize this notion is difficult for some people to understand, but even if you think that union membership is in the "best interest" for someone, that is not a determination for you or the union to make for that person. Believe it or not, some people still value freedom and pride themselves on individuality and independent thought and do not ascribe to your herd mentality. In fact, I'll go so far as to say:
I support VOLUNTARY participation in unions but do not support COMPULSORY participation. Vive la liberté!

Sigh... Again... THIS IS AN INVALID ARGUMENT.

Since unions factor in dues to ALL compensation negotiations, the only thing that constitutes as "voluntary" is your decision to work there to begin with. Which is based on, in part, the level of compensation you receive. Which would be significantly lower without the union representation. Not to mention the working conditions.

Again, I'm not pro-union. I hate how they tow the line f ...



Wrong. The decision to accept employment is an agreement between the employee and employer. The union is a third party that wants desperately to be involved in this voluntary contract but can only do so with the acquiescence of the employee. And if the employee does not want to acquiesce... well, that's the prerogative of a free man. Sorry if freedom makes you angry.
2012-12-12 12:07:01 PM  
1 votes:

mike_d85:

When unions are needed, they're great. Unfortunately, unions are rarely NEEDED.
/rant


I'm in this camp. If there was a way to limit unions' ability to abuse their power, I'd be all for them. But too often once they've gotten what the need, they just keep pushing beyond all reason. Plus, with rigidly defined work roles, rules, more rules and top-notch pay, efficiency falls whimpering to the bottom of a deep well.

I've worked for a custom machine supplier to many manufacturing plants, both union and non. At a plant in Illinois that makes large off-road machinery, the union(s) pretty much had guys (pipe-fitters, electricians, etc) standing around doing nothing for hours and over days, just to make sure we didn't turn a bolt or flip a switch that wasn't on their side of the fence. When it did come time for them to do their jobs (say, connecting cooling water to our machine), it always took at least 3 times as long, sometimes days longer, for them to complete their work than it has taken other non-union plants to do the same. They had a man assigned to operate the machine who's real job appeared to be to stand and distract me from my own work by talking random bullshiat. Every bit of work he actually did was done glacially. If he made a mess in his area (oil drips, shop rags) he wouldn't clean it up because that wasn't his job. I can't remember what he said his wage was, but it calculated to more than my salary at the time.

I'm pretty confident that that employer "earned" the union some time in the past by trying to assrape the workers... is it fair, just and American that the unions turn around and assrape the employer in perpetuity in return? Before you say turnabout is fair play, let me say that, while that plant is still in operation, the employer is now making the same equipment in China (my old employer still supplying) and the workers there *get shiat done*.

There's got to be a balance where no party gets assraped and we (Americans) maintain a proper work ethic *and* remain competitive in the global manufacturing market.
2012-12-12 11:58:55 AM  
1 votes:
You know what? I'm done here. Onto more important stuff.

People are going to think whatever they want to think, even if the truth is otherwise.

Union membership is NEVER compulsory. Since unions factor in dues to ALL compensation negotiations, the workers aren't paying a dime for membership. The company pays for it as part of the compensation package and it works like a free benefit that everyone gets. Unions hold elections for their leaders, so they are actually democratic in nature. Unions hold regular meetings so the representatives can hear and collect the opinions of its members. They are held accountable to whom they represent. And if they are not corrupt, they work to improve the relationship between company and employee to be more profitable for both parties.

I don't like how unions tow the line for the Democrat party. Democrats may have labor friendly policies, but also have extremely skewed policies on fiscal responsibility for the country as a whole. Additionally, they tow the line for a liberal social agenda that does not match what most union members hold as core values.

Unions do not support Republicans because they are so far into the pockets of large corporations who value profit over people. At the same time, Republicans support a socially conservative position which actually favors most union rank-and-file core principles. However, this just seems to be a convenient catalyst for Republicans to get elected by the general public, since their position on profits puts them at odds with most of middle class.

I hate our two party system for this reason. It forced its members to take unreasonable stances which don't reflect the needs of those it represents. Democrats who support more social conservative positions are silenced and removed from power. Republicans who want better wages and jobs for their constituents are summarily tossed from power.

All the while, we see ever increasing "religious wars of ideals" being waged between the two, while middle class slowly shrinks to obscurity, along with the American dream.

It's not right. We still live in a free country. And we have to change the course here. We can't continue to value profit over people.

I used to be as conservative as they come. However I also have a mind to consider these things. Gradually I came to alter my preconceptions about the world based on my real-life learning experiences. Socially I'm conservative, however, that does not give me the right to deny a gay couple the same benefits afforded to a married couple. I'm against abortion, however that does not give me the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. Fiscally, I'm conservative, but that does not give me the right to refuse a social safety net for those less fortunate than I nor o refuse a quality education for everyone. I'm patriotic, but that does not give me the right to encourage wars with other countries over oil profits nor to refuse legal immigration for those seeking a better life here. I'm free market, but that does not give me the right to destroy companies and communities by cheating and tossing workers who made me wealthy into the streets over profit or bonus.

In closing, I don't like propaganda or being told how to think. Especially when that propaganda encourages a lack of compassion to my fellow man or woman. You don't know what someone has gone through until you go through it yourself. And a lack of respect for that makes you one of the kind of people that I frankly don't want to become.
2012-12-12 11:57:29 AM  
1 votes:
if unions spent the time money and energy on figuring out why their "forced" members were unhappy and try to resolve the issue as they do protesting laws that prevent them from taking dues from people who don't want to be members, this whole argument would be moot...
2012-12-12 11:46:56 AM  
1 votes:
liam76,
this law will only force union membership down if people were unhappy with the union and unable to change it or the union didn't listen to them

Unions should take this on as a challenge to be more proactive to their members need so they don't lose them...
2012-12-12 11:20:53 AM  
1 votes:
Whatever happened to working within the system to change it?

Or are union apologists basically saying they condone violence because they're too stupid to effect change by changing people's hearts and minds?

Since it's open season to force change through violence, would it be OK to beat the living hell out of teachers who have Obama bumper stickers or Democratic legislators?

Violence only works in the short run, then the union mafia either ends up dead or in prison. So good plan you got there--way to prove the integrity of the Hostess unions by supporting the thuggery here we all know is right below the surface in most unions.
2012-12-12 10:28:42 AM  
1 votes:

Void_Beavis: Joe Blowme: Between 1977-08, employment grew 100% in right-to-work states vs. the national average of 71% and 56.5% in non-right-to-work states. That's according to a January study that Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder did for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

In this period, real per capita income in the right-to-work states grew 62.3% vs. the national average of 54.7% and 52.8% for non-right-to-work states.

the bottom 14 states for personal income growth (between 1999 and 2009) are all non-right-to- work states

Link

Income growth is not the same as income level. If I make $0, then I make $.01, that's a growth of 100%.

Working at Walmart is hardly a "liveable" income. However when we gut social services and extend benifits to corporations that ship jobs elsewhere, people have little choice but to work at Walmart.


So if you can do better, start your own "wallmart" business and pay employees all you want... or just sit their and arm chair quarterback those who actualy are runing businesses. Or are you just too selfish to share you business genius with the world?
2012-12-12 10:27:03 AM  
1 votes:

HakunaMatata: People should punch Fox news reporters every single chance they get.


2.bp.blogspot.com
2012-12-12 10:13:42 AM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: violentsalvation: Some people don't want to participate in your little scam, you stupid unions.

this has nothing to do with unions. want someone to blame? yell at the GOP. their dirty tricks created this mess. of COURSE it was gonna turn ugly. what did you expect would happen?

i'm not condoning violence but I am saying that this entire disaster was easily avoidable.


The legislative process is a dirty trick when we lose!

The people voted. Unions lost 58 to 42 on the union bills. Elections have consequences. This was a larger margin than Obama, yet you claim he won the powers of a dictator.

Not shocking you are wrong yet again.
2012-12-12 10:07:33 AM  
1 votes:
Between 1977-08, employment grew 100% in right-to-work states vs. the national average of 71% and 56.5% in non-right-to-work states. That's according to a January study that Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder did for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

In this period, real per capita income in the right-to-work states grew 62.3% vs. the national average of 54.7% and 52.8% for non-right-to-work states.

the bottom 14 states for personal income growth (between 1999 and 2009) are all non-right-to- work states

Link
2012-12-12 10:00:23 AM  
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.

Are you too lazy to negotiate for yourself? Can't you just get mommy to do it?

No law went up banning the right to organize. A law went up stating workers don't have to associate with others unless they want to. Unions exist in right to work states.

No rights have been removed. Only the truly ignorant believe that.

As evidenced in this thread
2012-12-12 09:55:13 AM  
1 votes:
We are on our way to slavery. If you dont like that, remove the ones who are about to own you. Or be ready to work for walmart for less than it cost to live.
2012-12-12 09:52:16 AM  
1 votes:

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


Are you too lazy to negotiate for yourself? Can't you just get mommy to do it?

No law went up banning the right to organize. A law went up stating workers don't have to associate with others unless they want to. Unions exist in right to work states.

No rights have been removed. Only the truly ignorant believe that.
2012-12-12 09:43:20 AM  
1 votes:
Simple:

A.)
You choose to have fewer workers who enjoy higher, inflated, uncompetitive wages. More unemployment, more government dependence = More Democratic Voters

B.) You choose to have competitive wages and more people employed, more people with the dignity of a job. Less unemployment, less government dependence = Fewer Democratic Voters

Which is why President Obama said on Monday. "These so-called right-to-work laws don't have anything to do with economics - they have everything to do with politics".

Yes they do Sir, yes they do.
2012-12-12 09:35:51 AM  
1 votes:

SubBass49: Joe Blowme: s1ugg0: ****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!

By giving them more choices? How is that? All dues are is kick back for having a job, like a protection racket or something. Like a job tax, how quaint.

[www.themistermen.co.uk image 300x273]
"The Story of Joe Blowme"


Ahhh, when your position is too weak to withstand debate, counter with inane cartoons.
Whats next? I know you are but what am i?
2012-12-12 09:34:27 AM  
1 votes:
Hate to say it, union or not, but the giant sucking noise is our jobs going overseas for cheaper labor due to corporate greed.

Both union and non union are powerless if there are no jobs.
2012-12-12 09:30:09 AM  
1 votes:
Ahh, standard liberal hypocrisy.

The same people who fight for "hate crime" legislation to prevent/punish violence against any particular group they embrace are more than happy to support/encourage/participate in violence against those groups they disagree with.
2012-12-12 09:20:29 AM  
1 votes:

s1ugg0: ****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!


By giving them more choices? How is that? All dues are is kick back for having a job, like a protection racket or something. Like a job tax, how quaint.
2012-12-12 09:15:51 AM  
1 votes:
****NEWSFLASH****

People get upset when you attack their livelihood and how they provide for their families. More at 11!
2012-12-12 09:09:32 AM  
1 votes:
i45.tinypic.com

Q&D...

/Damn commie-libtard Republican icons...
2012-12-12 08:54:35 AM  
1 votes:

mittromneysdog: As usual, the conservative spin is the exact opposite of reality. No one is ever legally mandated to join a union.


In a closed shop - which is the norm for union shops in Michigan up to this point - you either join the union or you are no longer employed there. So yes, one can be legally mandated to join a union if you work in a union shop. You don't have to join a union if you don't work in a union shop.
2012-12-12 08:53:41 AM  
1 votes:
I'm completely OK with punching Fox News reporters.
2012-12-12 08:50:50 AM  
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: xmasbaby: Jealous, of what? 20 years of wasted union dues and an unfunded pension?

You keep repeating this because you need it to be true. It's not, and you're jealous of their success. Don't worry about other people's money unless they have less than you.


I don't view public and government unions as huge success that you do. They get promised a bunch of money that is not actually there, and devise all sorts of silly requirements ensuring that they are "needed" when they aren't needed at all. They protect the wort employees and stifle the best.

I think you should be able to teach school or drive a bus without having to join a union if you don't want to. I think if unions actually do offer employees a benefit, then you shouldn't have to be forced to join one and that membership should be optional.
2012-12-12 08:49:50 AM  
1 votes:

CeroX: I was just sharing personal experience... and how that experience seemed to line up chronologically to the mid-80's rather than in the 70's as you described it...


I was a union member in the 70s and that's when I developed a distaste. But you're correct in the problems that developed in the 80s in the UAW. That's when the Japanese first entered the U.S. auto market in force and destroyed the unsustainable business model that the Big Three and the UAW had jointly forged since WW II.
2012-12-12 08:46:44 AM  
1 votes:

liam76: You may or may not agree with the right of unions (a private organization) to come to an agreement with a company (a private organization) on people they employ being a member of the union.

Saying they no longer have that right means people who go to a union shop can get the benefit of unions without having to pay. If you don't see how that will hurt the number of union members and how that will affect their ability to collectively bargain, you are being dishonest or a moron.


Why don't you point out to me exactly how sending a couple hours' wages per month to a national union that spends a majority of that dues money on political activities that have absolutely no bearing on negotiations with the company that employs me benefits me? And then point out how not sending in that money would hinder a collective bargaining process that is going to end up being mostly local?

I have been involved in too many non-union companies that actually have employee committees that negotiate with management for wages and benefits and which, effectively, perform all the activities of collective bargaining without a dollar of union dues to believe that unions are needed by anyone in this country except the DNC.

If unions are really that valuable, have them negotiate a contract that only covers union members and allow companies to pay non-union workers whatever they want. Once companies realize that, they can force employees to work for minimum wage unless they join the union. Or unless companies realize the value of the employee without a collective bargaining agreement and pay them accordingly with or without union membership.

When I was a member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the union stood in the way of advancement and raises for me because seniority dictated that employees less skillful and less productive be paid more. The union actually refused to negotiate for higher wages for employees because the bargaining unit members were afraid it would jeopardize their ability to negotiate contract language requiring more company-paid time for union stewards to do nothing. I remain unimpressed with unions' idea of collective bargaining.
2012-12-12 08:41:45 AM  
1 votes:

StrangeQ: Void_Beavis: StrangeQ: Thunderpipes: once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Show me a conservative group that is working for better wages and workers rights.

Oh wait, you can't, because you're a farking moron and they don't exist.

I think you missed his point. While forced union members may be all about workers rights, they may also have a stronger moral stance for being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage.

So their moral dilemma here is to have their pay and benifits held hostage for funding a social liberal agenda.

I'm not saying I'm pro or anti abortion or gay here. All I'm saying is that the OP makes a valid point.

No, he wasn't thinking that far into it. I really don't think he is capable. His point was the simple and laughable "LAWL LIBRULS WULDN"T GIVE MONIES TO A REPUBLICAN WULD THEY??" To which to answer is a simple yes, they would, if the republican was taking a stance supporting their rights for once instead of feeding the 1%.


Which is why I hate our two party system.

You can't actually vote for the person who best represents your interests.
2012-12-12 08:37:12 AM  
1 votes:
I disagree with this law, and how it was passed, however unions shouldn't be able to require people who work in a union shop to pay for their "political" actions, and you shoudl never be forced to join a union on a public job.
2012-12-12 08:34:09 AM  
1 votes:
unions relevant as buggy whips
2012-12-12 08:33:42 AM  
1 votes:

StrangeQ: Thunderpipes: once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Show me a conservative group that is working for better wages and workers rights.

Oh wait, you can't, because you're a farking moron and they don't exist.


I think you missed his point. While forced union members may be all about workers rights, they may also have a stronger moral stance for being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage.

So their moral dilemma here is to have their pay and benifits held hostage for funding a social liberal agenda.

I'm not saying I'm pro or anti abortion or gay here. All I'm saying is that the OP makes a valid point.
2012-12-12 08:32:20 AM  
1 votes:

Elandriel: We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.


Yeah.... the a group of the highest paid blue collar workers on the planet is just a kettle about to boil over.

Makes me wonder what is really going on that has them so violent... I always come back to "the mob doesn't want their revenue stream drying up." Rational people don't resort to assault because of some esoteric discussion about labor rights that would not affect them one way or another, and they are already making $30/hour for on a menial job, and there is a payment for their $50k Harley Davidson due next week.

Then again, my wife is a collections officer at a bank and they are constantly foreclosing on people in the "boiler maker" union because they can't like on $80k a year in their welding job, because they keep writing checks at the local internet gambling cafe.... so maybe these people aren't rational. By all means, give them what they want before they kill us all.
2012-12-12 08:31:45 AM  
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could?

They can at any time. Also, cite a source for that.

ya, they can leave, but they still have to pay dues,.

No, they can quit whenever they like.

once again, morons, would you be for unions if they forced employees to fund Republicans?

Nobody is forced to fund Democrats. You don't get to torture the word "forced" to make your hack point.

CA alone is over 300 billion underfunded in their pension plans, because of unions. Nationwide that number dwarfs the deficit. How is that working for you? You want free stuff,

Free? They negotiated a contract and performed their end of the bargain. Again, your jealousy shines through.


Jealous, of what? 20 years of wasted union dues and an unfunded pension?
2012-12-12 08:18:48 AM  
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: I'm confused. I thought being pro choice was good


Sure. As long as you choose what I want.

Hypocrisy is a biatch ain't it?
2012-12-12 08:18:23 AM  
1 votes:
Why not do something else somewhere else? Buncha babies. Rarely have I seen so many people that I thought deserved to be put back through elementary school. Sad bunch but they hopefully will keep paying into the rest of Detrizzle's welfare coffers. There was one guy they kept showing on Channel 2 that literally looked like George Wendt as a superfan. Had a Ditka stache and late 70s era windbreaker that he stole from BB King's bass guitarist lol.
2012-12-12 08:11:58 AM  
1 votes:

hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.


If that's true, the all those years on union dues didn't do those Hostess workers any good after all, did it? As for "fear being the mother of morality"... I gotta say, that doesn't make any sense at all, unless you are particularly religious.
2012-12-12 08:11:23 AM  
1 votes:
Yesterday - Change, it's something Republicans can't and won't accept.

Today - Change, it's something Democrats can't and won't accept.
2012-12-12 08:06:44 AM  
1 votes:

Elandriel: Consider the sustained attack against worker's rights to organize and negotiate for a better station in life vs. owners, this is a logical progression. We are seeing the beginning of the modern day labor rights movement, I think.

People probably will end up dying for their rights again before this is settled. And, we'll probably come back to it again in another 80 years.


The unions are so attractive, they have to force people to join them and pay dues as a condition of employment in states without right-to-work.

If the unions provide a valuable service, they will be utilized in right-to-work states. The right-to-work laws that allow people to opt out won't be a deterrent.
2012-12-12 07:58:36 AM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.

The top 1% aren't the ones out on their ass without a job, now are they?

What is that, the sound of union membership declining? Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could? Those 40% of rank and file workers = the 1%?

Moron.


Calling what the 1% do a 'job' is hilarious! They're only 'job' is to make sure they use the massive wealth they stumbled upon to keep others employed.

See how those 40% feel when they're shopping at the company store again and making below poverty wages.

Most people could sit their fat arse on a plush office chair and NOT destroy a massive company. Most of the 1% in America right now should not have jobs.
2012-12-12 07:52:11 AM  
1 votes:
People who do not understand the reasons for unions and strikes should not talk about economics, at all.

Yes, unions get out of hand like all organizations, but you don't throw out innovations because they're misused in some cases. Let's stop practicing medicine completely because malpractice exists! Diggity derp!!
2012-12-12 07:51:42 AM  
1 votes:

hitlersbrain: Thunderpipes: I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

You realize the union took deep pay cuts at Hostess while the management gave themselves huge raises? You know that is very, very typical in America today, right? It's time the top 1% learn to be afraid again. Fear is the mother of all morality.


The top 1% aren't the ones out on their ass without a job, now are they?

What is that, the sound of union membership declining? Oh, 40% of MI union members polled said they would leave the union if they could? Those 40% of rank and file workers = the 1%?

Moron.
2012-12-12 07:50:08 AM  
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.

There's the nugget. You're jealous of their success. Your inability to negotiate shouldn't make you hate unions.


Who are the idiots who say individuals somehow can't negotiate with their employers? You never got a raise from asking?

You would not be so pleased if a company or a city forced workers to join a conservative club and pay $1,000 a year to fund George Bush's campaign, and you know it. You just want taxpayer funded election money for your homeys, nothing more, nothing less. It is time it stops, and the public is waking up.

Look at how union employees act. Oh, you are butthurt? Lets cancel school for 26,000 kids. Fark you, union members. It is a great day when those criminal bastards get beat down.
2012-12-12 07:47:23 AM  
1 votes:

swankywanky: Thunderpipes: log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.

I am sure Hostess former employees agree. I am sure the taxpayers that fund lavish pensions for terrible workers agree as well.


why yes, our tax dollars do go to members of Congress


Whom we elected and continue to elect.

So who's more terrible? Them or us?
2012-12-12 07:20:44 AM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.


Really?

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

Seems that it's the extremist RW Repukes who are afraid of freedom & democracy.
2012-12-12 07:19:07 AM  
1 votes:
Union guy was assaulted and provoked, but the correction wont come out until all the idiots have secured their opinion on the matter.
2012-12-12 07:17:32 AM  
1 votes:

video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.


I agree. What's your address? We need to have a chat.
2012-12-12 06:14:46 AM  
1 votes:

3StratMan: [img651.imageshack.us image 640x438]

What a typical exchange between a person with a right-leaning opinion (guy on left) and a FarkLib (guy on right) probably would look like if they met in person. (Based on most Fark political "conversations")


I like to think REAL right wingers aren't shallow, amoral, blow-dried pussies. Heck, there's a few on this site that are pretty smart.

I DO hope you're not confusing Fox-Republican with conservative...it's a common mistake.
2012-12-12 06:05:09 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.


That's "at-will employment" that you are describing. Admittedly, most "right to work" states are also at-will, but it IS a different thing. One typically paves the way for the other.
2012-12-12 05:59:05 AM  
1 votes:

cassapolis: I live in Michigan and I work in an industry that is not union and I still think what Snyder did should be illegal. He has been a disaster for our economy and for our future. The good thing though is that if republicans continue to push these unpopular measures through without getting public opinion let alone a Vote they will not be in power for long. Poor people tend to care more about what their leadership is doing than the wealthy. If a governor believes that supporting owners and not workers is the best way to stay in power they will be swiftly and loudly reminded of how wrong they are. The owner will give you 1 vote to the workers 100.


Except you probably don't want to have a vote on RTW either. The vote on the bridge proposal didn't work out so well for the unions either. Considering only about 18% of workers in Michigan are union, I'd bet that RTW would pass at the ballot boxes as well, especially after the way the union people conducted themselves in front of the whole nation yesterday.
2012-12-12 05:35:59 AM  
1 votes:
img651.imageshack.us

What a typical exchange between a person with a right-leaning opinion (guy on left) and a FarkLib (guy on right) probably would look like if they met in person. (Based on most Fark political "conversations")
2012-12-12 05:27:57 AM  
1 votes:
Bbbbbut Gox News was trolling them!

Get real.

What if I decked somebody in real life for something he said on Fark? Do I get to use his trolling as an excuse?
2012-12-12 05:27:48 AM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.

People who actually work for a living: One of many things Republicans can't stand.
.
.
blah, blah, blah The Republicans are the one's passing laws allowing people to work, the unions are fighting to prevent people from working at workplaces that have a union unles they pay shake down money. I have many friends with small companies that have been kicked off of jobs because their 3-4 man company wasn't paying dues to union lawyers.

Fark you buddy.


FTFY. You're free to work a non-union job. But if your workplace has a union and you aren't a part of it, you're a parasite. Unless, of course, you sign a waiver preventing yourself from receiving the wages and benefits a union negotiates for.
2012-12-12 05:23:06 AM  
1 votes:

LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.

People who actually work for a living: One of many things Republicans can't stand.

.
.
blah, blah, blah The Republicans are the one's passing laws allowing people to work, the unions are fighting to prevent people from working unles they pay shake down money. I have many friends with small companies that have been kicked off of jobs because their 3-4 man company wasn't paying dues to union lawyers.

Fark you buddy.
2012-12-12 05:15:49 AM  
1 votes:
Freedom and democracy, the two things so called progressives fear the most.
2012-12-12 04:59:19 AM  
1 votes:

I sound fat: Well, im not GOP, but I know I dont want to be in a union.

Why does everything have to be D v R?


so don't join a union.

And because that's what the whole thing is about. R's doing what the can to squash unions. as they've done for decades. Yet they try to pass it off in this case that suddenly it's not about helping business, it's about protecting those poor exploited workers forced to join a union.


I sound fat: Again, so its OKAY to require someone to think like you to work in your shop?


to "think like you"? wtf are you talking about?
2012-12-12 04:59:15 AM  
1 votes:

super_grass: LordJiro: I sound fat: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work decent wages and working conditions without being forced to pay to be in your club working for them!

FTFY

If people are upset with lab or conditions, they can join a union, if not they can choose not to.

If you can't see how government mandated labor cartels can have unintended consequences, then there is no hope for you.


You aren't forced to work in a union shop; no state MANDATES unions. But if you CHOOSE to work in a union shop, there are certain responsibilities that come with the benefits.
2012-12-12 04:49:43 AM  
1 votes:

Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.

I think you can and do sometimes.


If you ever retort against GAT, he will cry to the fat mods and they will ban you. It's happened before.
2012-12-12 04:48:27 AM  
1 votes:

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: "What happens when a Republican gets back in the White House and starts dismantling protections and pro-labor enforcement?"



Tell me more about how Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. dismantled union protections (especially in Michigan) and sent the labor landscape back to 1920.
2012-12-12 04:47:59 AM  
1 votes:

video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.


Just like Papa Joe used to use. Like in the good old days when it was acceptable to kill hundreds of millions because college professors agreed with you.
2012-12-12 04:46:55 AM  
1 votes:
Righties: Ya know how unfair it feels when the Lefties tell you that you are racist because they saw a picture of a Rightie being racist?

Well, saying :union members" punched a reporter because one did.....
2012-12-12 04:45:47 AM  
1 votes:

I sound fat: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work decent wages and working conditions without being forced to pay to be in your club working for them!


FTFY
2012-12-12 04:43:53 AM  
1 votes:

homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.


YEAH! screw those people who want a right to work without being forced to pay to be in your club!
2012-12-12 04:36:55 AM  
1 votes:

spmkk: NobleHam: "Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.

If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it."


Yeah - that's totally what workers are threatened with today.


NobleHam: "The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now..."

...which have since been permanently enshrined as law in the labor code and are guaranteed. So, what precious rights is the Proletariat violently fighting for now? (Note: being able to force people to join a union and pay dues before they can get a job is not a right.)


After all, it's not like laws can be changed, or that there's a huge chunk of the working class willing to vote against their best interests, just to spite 'the libs', or that most of our government is in the pocket of big businesses....
2012-12-12 04:33:05 AM  
1 votes:

spmkk: NobleHam: "Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.

If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it."


Yeah - that's totally what workers are threatened with today.


NobleHam: "The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now..."

...which have since been permanently enshrined as law in the labor code and are guaranteed. So, what precious rights is the Proletariat violently fighting for now? (Note: being able to force people to join a union and pay dues before they can get a job is not a right.)


Who knows what the plutocrats will try next. I'd like to have strong unions in place when the corporations come out with their next great idea to cut costs and increase profits at the expense of their workers' welfare. "Right-to-work" laws are intended to break unions. I hope they won't, I hope there won't be any scabs, that people will voluntarily join unions and pay dues, but their intent is to destroy worker's rights.
2012-12-12 04:31:19 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Video of the dude getting punched.

1. He was trolling the crowd.

2. another union member stopped the first guy.


I do find it interesting (given the recent history of Republicans and strategically edited videos), that the video never reveals what Crowder said to set the crowd off.

/Not that mob violence needs a justification - it can just happen but I'm not totally trusting of a FNC employed journalist's side of the story
2012-12-12 04:26:51 AM  
1 votes:
Also, let's stop pretending like this has anything to do with "right and wrong.". This was a political hit job and nothing more. Unions support The Enemy, and must be destroyed at all costs. Everything else is just marketing BS.

Or is someone here dumb enough to try to argue that if unions were strongly supportive of the GOP, they'd still be doing this because of "freedom"?
2012-12-12 04:25:29 AM  
1 votes:
Never mind punched, the Fox guy should be fired. Last I checked, being a "reporter" meant you were supposed to cover the news, not tell protesters to stop breaking stuff. When douches like him make it ok for reporters to be hit, it means stuff won't get covered and we as a people will be less informed.

Its Fox, I should know better than to have expectations...
2012-12-12 04:20:57 AM  
1 votes:

spmkk: NobleHam: "Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.

If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it."


Yeah - that's totally what workers are threatened with today.


NobleHam: "The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now..."

...which have since been permanently enshrined as law in the labor code and are guaranteed. So, what precious rights is the Proletariat violently fighting for now? (Note: being able to force people to join a union and pay dues before they can get a job is not a right.)


Is this really what republicans now believe? That a massive, unelected regulatory apparatus is GOOD for the country? Anything for The Cause, I suppose.

What happens when a Republican gets back in the White House and starts dismantling protections and pro-labor enforcement? Hell, even under Democratic administrations, agencies like OSHA are woefully undermanned and under-funded to prosecute all violations nationwide. Are you comfortable with the idea that all of your contracted rights are subject to the whims of an opaque political process? I'm certainly not.
2012-12-12 04:20:17 AM  
1 votes:
the man in the union jacket deserves a medal
2012-12-12 04:09:08 AM  
1 votes:

kvinesknows: so... the people protesting are simply protesting because they dont like their right to be able to force other people to join them being removed?

Are these people americans or communists?


You can always work somewhere that doesn't have a union; as far as I know, there are no states where non-union shops are banned. Sure, the pay and benefits will suck, and you have no real protection from higher-ups shiatting on you, but you'll have stuck it to those darn unions!
2012-12-12 04:07:43 AM  
1 votes:
"Right-to-work" is better than Unions anyway.
2012-12-12 04:01:00 AM  
1 votes:

Relatively Obscure: Weaver95: Relatively Obscure:
Like I said, that dude was a Grade A douchebag.

so is Fox News...

Fox news isn't a douchebag. It employs them.


Are you sure? Corporations are people too, after all.
2012-12-12 03:57:35 AM  
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.

Arrrggghhhh!!!

"Right to Work" doesn't mean that. Jebus. LOOK IT UP
In a "Right to Work" state you may not be forced to join a union or forced to pay dues to a union in order to get a job. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'firing at anytime' enjoy the rights a union negotiates for, without any of the responsibility.


FTFY, leeches.

/Of course, that's just what the lazy right-to-work moochers think. If every worker in a shop isn't compelled to join the union, the union has almost no negotiating power.
//But hey, lazy right-to-work moochers, like most Republicans, have no foresight.
2012-12-12 03:57:12 AM  
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: "Right to Work" doesn't mean that. Jebus. LOOK IT UP
In a "Right to Work" state you may not be forced to join a union or forced to pay dues to a union in order to get a job. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'firing at anytime'


And North Korea is a democracy. It says so right in the title. LOOK IT UP.
2012-12-12 03:52:30 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: violentsalvation: I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union,

part of a company is union, part is not. The part that is union negotiates a new contract for higher wages, holiday pay, and healthcare. The company agrees and gives all the workers those benefits. Those who didn't pay union benefits still get the rewards of that unions work and its members.

and I don't know if you work in a "right to work" state, but if you do when you get constantly reminded that it's a "right to work" state and that they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all, you'll then realize just who the beneficiaries of that law really is. And it's not guys who are "forced" to pay union dues.


Arrrggghhhh!!!

"Right to Work" doesn't mean that. Jebus. LOOK IT UP
In a "Right to Work" state you may not be forced to join a union or forced to pay dues to a union in order to get a job. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'firing at anytime'
2012-12-12 03:50:40 AM  
1 votes:

Lsherm: homelessdude: video man: Good. It's about time we start using old school tactics.

I was just about to say the same thing. Enough is enough.

I agree. Beating people you disagree with is the best way to get the point across that you won't make a good employee. The arrest records should keep them out of the job pool long enough for more qualified people to join in.


If it prevents the kind of misery and death we saw until the 1920s and '30s in non-unionized labor, then it's well worth it. The Right wing idiots would do well to remember that people fought and died to get the union rights they have now, and would do it again.
2012-12-12 03:48:09 AM  
1 votes:
I thought poor uneducated whites were te fox news base?
2012-12-12 03:21:47 AM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: violentsalvation: Some people don't want to participate in your little scam, you stupid unions.

this has nothing to do with unions. want someone to blame? yell at the GOP. their dirty tricks created this mess. of COURSE it was gonna turn ugly. what did you expect would happen?

i'm not condoning violence but I am saying that this entire disaster was easily avoidable.


If it has nothing to do with unions then this whole thread is one big threadjack. I'm not opposed to unions, I think they can do and have done many great things for the working class. I'm against forced participation. If the union is so great then the people will surely join it. And if that union isn't worth joining then perhaps a stranglehold is alleviated.

I have yet to see a sensible or reasonable argument for forced participation in a union, all I hear is that the GOP is up to some dirty tricks and is lint-deep into someone's pocket. And this is a travesty sh*tting all over workers everywhere. So we all owe some coal miners from 100 years ago, lest they put us all back in the mines.
2012-12-12 03:13:18 AM  
1 votes:
With alllll of that said, I would like to see a less edited down version of events. It's quite possible that something very significant got snipped out of the video log_jammin linked to.
2012-12-12 03:02:18 AM  
1 votes:

Relatively Obscure:
Like I said, that dude was a Grade A douchebag.


so is Fox News...
2012-12-12 03:01:43 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Weaver95: you really don't think Fox News might have ramped up the violence on purpose?

dude. this is really simple. The guy who took a swing is a douch for taking a swing. It has nothing to do with fox news, unions, or whatever. The guy farked up, and now the submitter has a nice trolltastic headline that all the other trolls get to masturbate to once this goes green.

stop excusing douchy behavior.


you really don't think Fox News might have pushed things even a little...?
2012-12-12 02:57:47 AM  
1 votes:

Relatively Obscure: Weaver95: Relatively Obscure:
And again. If you're the sort of clown who reacts to hurt feelings with violence, stay home and don't get married.

And again, that's 99.99% of the human race. to include you, I might add.

Boy, I remember the last time I started a fight by taking a swing at someone who had not attacked me.

Grade school.


properly provoked, you'll take a swing at people too. and if you don't believe that, then you're lying to yourself. especially if everyone in the crowd around you is doing the same thing.

that said, we're moving away from the topic at hand. I think it's likely that Fox News went there to provoke the union workers in order to catch some footage for their evening news segments...then got more than they expected. now...you can yell at the union workers for that, but you'd damn well better slam fox news reporters for making a tense situation even worse. think you can do that?
2012-12-12 02:55:34 AM  
1 votes:
Not even posted yet, and this thread already has the neighborhood fat kids and overnight IT guys acting pretend tough.

This will just be an epic goddamn cluster fark when all is said and done.
2012-12-12 02:36:54 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Weaver95: except that GAT has a point - fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse. the local MI Republicans already antagonized the unions and pissed off the local Democrats. then along comes fox news (and a few tea baggers) to jump in and gloat about how great it was that the lame duck session was used by their hero Republicans to ramrod some unpopular legislation through congress and hey, it's just wonderful to see such dirty tricks used to great effect.

which goes right back to " you can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy, so long as it's your enemy as well."


no, i'm saying emotions were already running hot. Fox news only made it worse.
2012-12-12 02:29:27 AM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: fox news went there and made an already difficult situation worse.


Not arguing that. It's still not okay to play punchadouche on some douche doing little more than being a douche. If you can't control yourself better than that, stay the fark home.
2012-12-12 01:55:36 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: See above. And yeah, if I went to an anti-gay marriage rally and gloated to someone's face about how gays were going to get married and they couldn't stop it, I'd expect to be punched in the face too.


Oh the dude was without a doubt trolling the crowd, But I don't think "he had it coming". I don't make excuses for bad behavior.
2012-12-12 01:28:54 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: GAT_00: Relatively Obscure: log_jammin: Crowder said "Dana, they literally would have killed me where I stood if I'd of fought back and defended myself after the sucker punch. They literally would have torn me limb-from-limb."

I'd love for someone to point to where in the video that he valiantly fought back to save his life.

DNRTFA or whatever, but I think your quote is him specifically saying he did NOT fight back valiantly and WHY he may appear to be a huge wimpoid to Red Blooded America.

/Shouldn't really attack this guy. It's at best akin to attacking WBC clowns.

I can't really blame someone for attacking their enemy.

I think you can and do sometimes.

Was it smart? Was it appropriate? Of course not. But fark it, those people need punched in the face for what they're doing to the country. I wouldn't hesitate to convict the guy for assault, but these people are the enemy of the country. They are a big force in driving all this shiat that is also driving this country straight into the gutter. A punch to the face is well deserved.


You could have c/p'd that from a Freep post about a different article.
2012-12-12 12:41:04 AM  
1 votes:
May the Walton children and their ilk eat ALL the cocks, and the tidal waves of cum wipe them from the pages of history.
2012-12-11 11:59:39 PM  
1 votes:
House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, has said the state police's constitutional autonomy prevents the Legislature from making financial support of the troopers' union optional.

That's... convenient.


"I'm going to jail today!"

It's good to have goals.
2012-12-11 10:25:18 PM  
1 votes:
Iron & coal police ring any bells?
 
Displayed 142 of 142 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report