Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
No. The definition of a "thug" remains "a violent person, especially criminal."
I am not denying that unions used to use violence decades ago. It was ugly when unions first came about. The term "union thug" had a specific meaning, and it involved violence and terror and pain.
But you characterizing unions the same way today is simply wrong.
Words have meanings. You are calling union members - the schoolteachers, firefighters and policemen of Wisconsin, "union thugs".
That's nasty of you to call them that. And factually wrong.
|
Unions are bullies then. That the majority of their forced membership would opt out of given a choice.
Obama will say or do anything to get elected. Which was the original point of my statement. The thug comment was more about seeing them take a public beating.