:rolleyes:

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

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

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

Nothing.

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

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

Act 10. Read it. The whole thing. You can read newspaper quotes about it, too.

I'm just shocked to see you admit you haven't the first clue about why the Wisconsin recalls occurred, and what happened to start them - the votes, the laws that were passed.

You've heard of the Ryan Budget, right?

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

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

Bigotry. It lives. Proudly.

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

You should know, hypocrite.

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

funny thing about wisconsin
 

i went to a wedding in door county. was there for a week. people we met at the wedding sent 2 packers seahawks playoff tickets, a couple years back in that snow game on the frozen tundra. a must see venue. while there, other than the players on the field, I saw one person who wasn't white. he was a big native american cat with a license plate that said chief. you woulda thought it was Maine. just sayin'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuance. It's too complicated for some.

The truth is apparently too complicated for you.

LOL - I saw that last night, it's great :tro:

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

Do you think calling Wisconsin schoolteachers "union thugs" is accurate or even remotely fair? Yes or no? It's bullshiat, and you know it.

Calling kindergarten teachers "union thugs" is the deliberate ALEC language created to make neighbors justify taking pensions and raises out of the hands of their kids kindergarten teachers, their next-door neighbors.

"Hate those "union thugs", folks!" "Those freeloaders deserve to have their pensions and salaries cut!"

It's pathetic and sad to see people falsely calling Wisconsin public employees "union thugs".

Especially when during my entire lifetime, the word about teachers has been that they are, "woefully underpaid and overworked for the benefit they bring to our children and our society". But hey! Wisconsin is broke. Massive deficit. But still gotta give tax cuts to Walker's cronies to "create jobs" and "be a good business environment".

So have to get the money from somewhere ... hey! The evil union thugs! We'll take their money! They don't deserve their pensions!

Act 10 PDF search for tax cuts...no matches found.

"66.0518 Defined benefit pension plans. A local
governmental unit, as defined in s. 66.0131 (1) (a), may
not establish a defined benefit pension plan for its
employees unless the plan requires the employees to pay
half of all actuarially required contributions for funding
benefits under the plan and prohibits the local governmental
unit from paying on behalf of an employee any of
the employee’s share of the actuarially required contributions."
-seems reasonable, no?

search for wealthy...no matches found.

search for income...all results are for State income or reference incomes levels relative to poverty levels and the benefits available to those folks.

Unable to find any mention of cuts for the wealthy in there.

Think really hard about this concept of "somebody has to pay for the tax cuts". Go back to when the Wisconsin state senate passed the union busting bill. Read the newspapers around that time. Wisconsin was in a massive deficit. Who got the tax cuts? Who got income cut to pay for it? What was in Act 10?

You say that simply doesn't exist. Open your eyes.

Pretending it doesn't exist unless you find one legal document that has actual language that says, "we will cut taxes for the rich by taking pension money" is laughably obtuse.

The actuality is present in both the Walker's Wisconsin budget bill, and the Ryan budget.

But you say that it is written.

Proof or dismissal. Your rules.

Yes. Read the Walker Budget. Who got tax cuts? Who paid for it? This budget already exists. It's right there for you. It caused the recalls. Again - you pretending it doesn't exist unless you find one legal document that has actual language that says in one sentence, "we will cut taxes for the rich by taking pension money" is laughably obtuse. Let alone naive.

Read the budgets. Who got tax cuts in Wisconsin under this budget? Who gets income cuts (via pension and benefit cuts) to make up the difference? It's not that hard for most people to see. It's the reason for the Wisconsin recalls.

Read the Ryan budget. Who gets tax cuts? Who pays for it?

Read the United States Tax Code. Trollololoooolololol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XZGHOxnCto