[TheRealVille]

Unions have use coercion, threats of violence, and actual violence to gain monopoly positions with employers. A person who does not believe in paying dues to help socialists like Obama into office often is given no choice but to join a union or look for work elsewhere. Where is such a person's right to earn a living? That is one of the most basic human rights and it is a right that most unions undermine through collective bargaining, often to the detriment of their own members.

BTW, I support the right of unions to enter into mutually beneficial agreements with employers, provided the agreements are entered into by all parties voluntarily and without the threat of violence. Too often, that is not the case. I learned that on my very first job as a UMWA miner in the 1970s. Armed roving pickets wearing ski masks and engaged in illegal wildcat strikes prevented me from working on average every other day in Martin County. Don't bother telling me that the threat of violence is not a tool that big labor employs in organizing because I know better.

Monopolies of markets and labor both infringe upon peoples' right to earn the best living that they can. Liberals see the dangers of companies practising monopolistic tactics but turn a blind eye to the unions doing the same.

Here is another question for you RV - an easy one for anybody who truly believes in equal rights for everyone. Do you support federal hate crimes legislation? Should a person guilty of attacking a member of a minority or a gay person pay a higher price than for attacking you or me? In other words, should criminals be punished based on their thoughts or their actions?

The United Nations voted on a military action, US and Europe began an air strike campaign, and that is all. It's an air strike, nothing more. Do we have troops on the ground? Congress has had plenty of time to reprimand him, if he is in the wrong. How many Americans have died since they started the strike.

[Hoot Gibson]

The United Nations voted on a military action, US and Europe began an air strike campaign, and that is all. It's an air strike, nothing more. Do we have troops on the ground? Congress has had plenty of time to reprimand him, if he is in the wrong. How many Americans have died since they started the strike. Is the 60 days up?

The United Nations is irrelevant to American law. Obama ordered American troops to take hostile action against the lawful government of a sovereign country. Libyans who are dead from hundreds (who knows how many) of air strikes, cruise missiles, and drones are still dead. It is Obama's lawful obligation to comply with federal laws. Congress is the legislative branch. Obama commands the branch that is responsible for faithfully executing those laws - and he is doing an exceptionally poor job in that regard...and yes, hostilities have been ongoing for well over 60 days.

[TheRealVille]

The United Nations is irrelevant to American law. Obama ordered American troops to take hostile action against the lawful government of a sovereign country. Libyans who are dead from hundreds (who knows how many) of air strikes, cruise missiles, and drones are still dead. It is Obama's lawful obligation to comply with federal laws. Congress is the legislative branch. Obama commands the branch that is responsible for faithfully executing those laws - and he is doing an exceptionally poor job in that regard...and yes, hostilities have been ongoing for well over 60 days.

Libya is sovereign, and Iraq isn't? You were all for those hostilities. BTW, you are off topic.

[Hoot Gibson]

Libya is sovereign, and Iraq isn't? You were all for those hostilities. BTW, you are off topic.

Bush had strong, bipartisan support for the action against Iraq, and that country was in violation of its terms of surrender from the first Gulf War. Libya was in violation of no such agreements with our government and as far as I know, it was not violating multiple UN resolutions either (irrelevant that they may be). Obama committed us to the fight against the Libyan government without provocation and without either prior Congressional approval or approval after the fact.

You are correct about me being off topic, but I think that your response to my post linking unions and hate crimes to basic human rights was probably intended as a response to my post in another thread, to which i responded with yet another off topic post. Maybe you just did not want to respond to my original questions. I think that we both got our threads crossed. :biggrin:

[TheRealVille]

Unions have use coercion, threats of violence, and actual violence to gain monopoly positions with employers. A person who does not believe in paying dues to help socialists like Obama into office often is given no choice but to join a union or look for work elsewhere. Where is such a person's right to earn a living? That is one of the most basic human rights and it is a right that most unions undermine through collective bargaining, often to the detriment of their own members.

BTW, I support the right of unions to enter into mutually beneficial agreements with employers, provided the agreements are entered into by all parties voluntarily and without the threat of violence. Too often, that is not the case. I learned that on my very first job as a UMWA miner in the 1970s. Armed roving pickets wearing ski masks and engaged in illegal wildcat strikes prevented me from working on average every other day in Martin County. Don't bother telling me that the threat of violence is not a tool that big labor employs in organizing because I know better.

Monopolies of markets and labor both infringe upon peoples' right to earn the best living that they can. Liberals see the dangers of companies practising monopolistic tactics but turn a blind eye to the unions doing the same.

Here is another question for you RV - an easy one for anybody who truly believes in equal rights for everyone. Do you support federal hate crimes legislation? Should a person guilty of attacking a member of a minority or a gay person pay a higher price than for attacking you or me? In other words, should criminals be punished based on their thoughts or their actions?

My union never uses violence, never has. If any union person doesn't want to pay dues, has every opportunity to go to work in a non union shop, they have 89% of the jobs to our 11%. They will have no trouble finding a non union shop to work in if they have the skills. No violence is not a tool anymore, maybe decades ago, but not now, you don't know better. I support the same punishment for anybody doing violence to anybody, gay or straight.

[Hoot Gibson]

My union never uses violence, never has. If any union person doesn't want to pay dues, has every opportunity to go to work in a non union shop, they have 89% of the jobs to our 11%. They will have no trouble finding a non union shop to work in if they have the skills. No violence is not a tool anymore, maybe decades ago, but not now, you don't know better. I support the same punishment for anybody doing violence to anybody, gay or straight.

So, Jimmy Hoffa's threat against the Tea Party was just empty rhetoric? And stories such as the one chronicled below - are they just the products of active imaginations? You know that union violence and threats of violence are still a key part of organizing in this country. If you want, we can start a separate thread where members can post recent examples of union-related violence and you can try to explain them all away. The SEIU operates as Obama's personal goon squad on the campaign trail. It's how they earn those oversized taxpayer funded pensions.

[INDENT]

Limitations on violence under law tested anew
Case of Local 17 reignites national issue for labor

Updated: September 20, 2011, 2:22 PM

They're charged with pouring sand into the engines of construction vehicles and stabbing a company executive in the neck.


They're also accused of tossing hot coffee at non-union workers and threatening to sexually assault the wife of a company representative.


But in the eyes of organized labor -- and maybe the U.S. Supreme Court, as well -- the alleged violence, threats and intimidation by leaders of Local 17, Operating Engineers, in Buffalo may be permissible under federal law.


And that's why the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor organization, sought to intervene in the federal court case against the local.


"We're not condoning the allegations or arguing that union officials are completely immune from prosecution," said Jonathan D. Newman, a lawyer for the AFL-CIO. "Instead, we simply want to make sure that the [federal law] is not interpreted in a way that could have a chilling effect on legitimate union activity."


A federal judge Monday denied the AFL-CIO's request to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.


To hear labor leaders and defense lawyers talk, the nation's highest court long ago gave union members certain rights to use violence and vandalism in the pursuit of "legitimate union goals."

[/INDENT] [Image: http://csc.beap.ad.yieldmanager.net/i?bv...25,at$0%29]

[TheRealVille]

So, Jimmy Hoffa's threat against the Tea Party was just empty rhetoric? And stories such as the one chronicled below - are they just the products of active imaginations? You know that union violence and threats of violence are still a key part of organizing in this country. If you want, we can start a separate thread where members can post recent examples of union-related violence and you can try to explain them all away. The SEIU operates as Obama's personal goon squad on the campaign trail. It's how they earn those oversized taxpayer funded pensions.

[INDENT]
[/INDENT] [Image: http://csc.beap.ad.yieldmanager.net/i?bv...25,at$0%29]

Yea, if you want to talk union -non-union violence, you need to start a new thread, this thread has zero to do with that. This is a gays in the military thread. You will stop at nothing to promote your anti- Obama rhetoric. The fact that the moderators and Admins let you run rampant on every thread, even off topic, with your Obama rhetoric, amazes me.

[TheRealVille]

So, Jimmy Hoffa's threat against the Tea Party was just empty rhetoric? And stories such as the one chronicled below - are they just the products of active imaginations? You know that union violence and threats of violence are still a key part of organizing in this country. If you want, we can start a separate thread where members can post recent examples of union-related violence and you can try to explain them all away. The SEIU operates as Obama's personal goon squad on the campaign trail. It's how they earn those oversized taxpayer funded pensions.

[INDENT]
[/INDENT] [Image: http://csc.beap.ad.yieldmanager.net/i?bv...25,at$0%29]

You know full well he wasn't talking about violence, just like Sarah wasn't in her speech. He was talking about getting the bastards out of office, and you know this as well as I do. You actually don't have any class and dignity, do you? If you intend to claim that he meant take them out with violence, you are even more frigging stupid than I have given you credit for. You must be one of the lowest bastards the conservatives have.

[TheRealThing]

BTW, there were colonies of men all around the world way before the Bible was written, and they lived in harmony and with moral rules also, so they must have been morality before the Bible. Of course, unless you actually believe the earth is about 6000 years old.

Before the God's written Word was given, He spoke to men through prophets. One of the reasons that the genealogies of the scriptures are so important is that they demonstrate that men handed down God's law from one generation to the next from the days of Abraham. But, having a degree in religious studies, you would know that every Jew can trace his family line all the way back to Abraham. Men could never come up with the lofty, unattainable goals of morality, God is the author of morality. The best man could ever come up with was secular humanism and, secular humanists think it's ok to murder the unborn. Go figure.

What part of secular history do you find harmonious? Man has lived in a perpetual state of war since his creation and history has recorded it in living color, blood red. Men have never been moral or even reasonable, apart from laws and people to enforce those laws. On the secular side the problem is this; law has been debated into a state of confusion and the only thing that stands undebatable, is the notion of tolerance. On the Christian side, people have a tendency to govern themselves in an honorable fashion. That's the idea that our founding fathers based this country's constitution upon. The notion that people could be depended on to basically govern themselves. What moderated their behavior to make them so dependable? Christianity, of course. In general, society's masses down through the ages were kept in check the same way they do it in China, North Korea and Russia. Run your mouth or cause a ruckous or don't pay your taxes and the man comes and either kills you outright, or takes you away. That's living in fear not harmony.

[SKINNYPIG]

You know full well he wasn't talking about violence, just like Sarah wasn't in her speech. He was talking about getting the bastards out of office, and you know this as well as I do. You actually don't have any class and dignity, do you? If you intend to claim that he meant take them out with violence, you are even more frigging stupid than I have given you credit for. You must be one of the lowest bastards the conservatives have.

And you're wondering why Admins let Hoot "run rampant"? Wow!

[TheRealVille]

And you're wondering why Admins let Hoot "run rampant"? Wow!

I don't post off topic in every thread, just to get jab in on a certain politician. You can't help but to stick your nose in huh? Was my post talking to you in any way? I figure if they let him run wild, I might as well tell him what I really think, and not hold back.

[Skunk]

Some people in this thread are just idiots! At least probe into the situation with intelligence and an complete understanding of the situation. The armed services is 100% about confidence in your fellow soldier. I did not want to know who swung the other way when I was training or on missions. If I had, I would have not felt comfortable with him. If I didn't feel comfortable with him, then I did not want to soldier with him. I was with soldiers who had other issues, whether it was at home, relationship, or otherwise. If I could not feel comfortable with them, no matter how stable they appeared, I did not want to be lined up beside him. And I promise, no one else did either. Good grief!

[SKINNYPIG]

I don't post off topic in every thread, just to get jab in on a certain politician. You can't help but to stick your nose in huh? Was my post talking to you in any way? I figure if they let him run wild, I might as well tell him what I really think, and not hold back.

I didn't know you had to be "talking" to me before I could post. Have the rules been changed?

I just thought it was funny you were running rampant about someone running rampant...That's all.

Ask your doctor about Viagra, it might have a calming effect if you were to get "some".

[TheRealVille]

Some people in this thread are just idiots! At least probe into the situation with intelligence and an complete understanding of the situation. The armed services is 100% about confidence in your fellow soldier. I did not want to know who swung the other way when I was training or on missions. If I had, I would have not felt comfortable with him. If I didn't feel comfortable with him, then I did not want to soldier with him. I was with soldiers who had other issues, whether it was at home, relationship, or otherwise. If I could not feel comfortable with them, no matter how stable they appeared, I did not want to be lined up beside him. And I promise, no one else did either. Good grief!

Way to come in swinging, junior. Welcome to the board.

[Stardust]

^ I'm not so sure he likes "swinging" either.....

[TheRealVille]

^ I'm not so sure he likes "swinging" either.....

Maybe he just didn't want people to see his tiny "weapon", while he was in the service.

[Hoot Gibson]

You know full well he wasn't talking about violence, just like Sarah wasn't in her speech. He was talking about getting the bastards out of office, and you know this as well as I do. You actually don't have any class and dignity, do you? If you intend to claim that he meant take them out with violence, you are even more frigging stupid than I have given you credit for. You must be one of the lowest bastards the conservatives have.

Classy post, chucklehead. If you didn't like this post, then I will be interested in seeing your contributions to a future thread dedicated to chronicling the union goons who support Obama and do his dirty work. President Obama needs foot soldiers like you who are either too stupid or too dishonest to acknowledge the violent history of unions like the AFL-CIO and SEIU and the role that they play in Democratic politics.

Don't worry, I never expect your posts to reflect even a hint of intellectual depth or class. You never fail to push the bar of my expectations even lower with your responses.

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't post off topic in every thread, just to get jab in on a certain politician. You can't help but to stick your nose in huh? Was my post talking to you in any way? I figure if they let him run wild, I might as well tell him what I really think, and not hold back.

Don't worry, when you buy this operation, you can silence me with your first official action as owner. How are those negotiations going, BTW?

The best way for you to avoid losing debates and getting angry is to avoid debates - but buying the keys to the gate is probably the brightest idea that you have ever had. It was also the most entertaining one that I have seen you post on BGR. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

Don't worry, when you buy this operation, you can silence me with your first official action as owner. How are those negotiations going, BTW?

The best way for you to avoid losing debates and getting angry is to avoid debates - but buying the keys to the gate is probably the brightest idea that you have ever had. It was also the most entertaining one that I have seen you post on BGR. nicker:

I wasn't angry, but why don't you be honest in your posting. You knew as well as me that Hoffa wasn't meaning violence when you posted that video. You are a dickhead though, and everybody on this site knows it. You are very good entertainment though, with your lying posts. This site isn't for sale, or you would be the first one to be silenced. Be glad. At least you have TRT, Kimball, and the pilot as your fan club.

[Hoot Gibson]

I wasn't angry, but why don't you be honest in your posting. You knew as well as me that Hoffa wasn't meaning violence when you posted that video. You are a dickhead though, and everybody on this site knows it. You are very good entertainment though, with your lying posts. This site isn't for sale, or you would be the first one to be silenced. Be glad. At least you have TRT, Kimball, and the pilot as your fan club.

There are probably many posters on BGR who don't care for my opinions, RV, but I am guessing that few believe me to be a fool.

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," - Jimmy Hoffa

When he took the stage, President Obama said he was "proud" of Jimmy Hoffa and other labor leaders.

Prior to Obama's appearance Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa told the crowd, speaking about Republicans, that we need to "take these son of bitches out." link

I don't generally post information from blogs, but considering the quality of your links, I think that I will make an exception. For anybody inclined to believe your portrayal of Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., second generation union goon, as choir boys, I invite them to visit Michelle Malkin's blog via the link below. Of course, I should warn about the foul language but these are videos and snapshots of the foulest of the foul.

Enjoy. The information about Richard Trumka's advocacy of violence is particularly interesting but it comes as no shock to those of us who worked in the Appalachian coal fields in the 79s and 80s. Trumka has always been a thug. His predecessor Sam Church trained him well.

Happy Labor Day: Top 10 union thug moments of the year; Update: Jimmy Hoffa makes the list

[TheRealVille]

There are probably many posters on BGR who don't care for my opinions, RV, but I am guessing that few believe me to be a fool.

I don't generally post information from blogs, but considering the quality of your links, I think that I will make an exception. For anybody inclined to believe your portrayal of Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., second generation union goon, as choir boys, I invite them to visit Michelle Malkin's blog via the link below. Of course, I should warn about the foul language but these are videos and snapshots of the foulest of the foul.

Enjoy. The information about Richard Trumka's advocacy of violence is particularly interesting but it comes as no shock to those of us who worked in the Appalachian coal fields in the 79s and 80s. Trumka has always been a thug. His predecessor Sam Church trained him well.

Happy Labor Day: Top 10 union thug moments of the year; Update: Jimmy Hoffa makes the list

You will stoop to the lowest of depths. You very well know he wasn't talking about violence, but keep having your fun.

[Hoot Gibson]

You will stoop to the lowest of depths. You very well know he wasn't talking about violence, but keep having your fun.

It is absurd to compare the president of the Teamsters' comments to those of Sarah Palin. The Teamsters have a long and well deserved reputation for violent strikes. Obviously, you did not take time to watch the videos to which I linked. It is a lot less effort to simply stoop to name calling, as union goons like Jimmy Hoffa do, isn't it, RV? The great majority of union members in this country have never engaged in violent strikes but those who have and will can count on the tacit (and sometimes not so tacit) support of "leaders" like Hoffa and Trumka.

[TheRealVille]

It is absurd to compare the president of the Teamsters' comments to those of Sarah Palin. The Teamsters have a long and well deserved reputation for violent strikes. Obviously, you did not take time to watch the videos to which I linked. It is a lot less effort to simply stoop to name calling, as union goons like Jimmy Hoffa do, isn't it, RV? The great majority of union members in this country have never engaged in violent strikes but those who have and will can count on the tacit (and sometimes not so tacit) support of "leaders" like Hoffa and Trumka.

Word twist all you want. You know as well as me that Hoffa wasn't inciting violence in that video, no more than Sarah was in her speech about taking up arms. Even lowly snakes aren't as dishonest as you.

[Hoot Gibson]

Word twist all you want. You know as well as me that Hoffa wasn't inciting violence in that video, no more than Sarah was in her speech about taking up arms.

Please note that I started a couple of new threads to discuss two of the many burgeoning Obama scandals, and I do not plan on continuing to post off topic here. If you want to make your case that Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. is a fine, upstanding American citizen who would never condone violence by members of his union, why don't you start a new thread? Good luck if you do. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

Please note that I started a couple of new threads to discuss two of the many burgeoning Obama scandals, and I do not plan on continuing to post off topic here. If you want to make your case that Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. is a fine, upstanding American citizen who would never condone violence by members of his union, why don't you start a new thread? Good luck if you do. nicker:

In my email to the White House about your rhetoric, I informed them that you seemed very inflamed about the President, and getting more irrational and hostile toward Mr. Obama at every turn.

[Hoot Gibson]

In my email to the White House about your rhetoric, I informed them that you seemed very inflamed about the President, and getting more irrational and hostile toward Mr. Obama at every turn.

:lmao: You are pathetic, RV. The Soviets loved comrades like you. You are sounding more and more like the vile Mr. Hoffa, Jr. If you had more than a pea for a brain, you would seek to debate dimwits and steer clear of deeper waters.

[TheRealThing]

I wasn't angry, but why don't you be honest in your posting. You knew as well as me that Hoffa wasn't meaning violence when you posted that video. You are a dickhead though, and everybody on this site knows it. You are very good entertainment though, with your lying posts. This site isn't for sale, or you would be the first one to be silenced. Be glad. At least you have TRT, Kimball, and the pilot as your fan club.

Personally, I like to line up with folks who think for themselves. Not look for a reasons to justify blind allegiance to a side. If republicans are wrong I don't stick up for them. As I have said several times the reason I usually find myself more closely agreeing with the republicans is because they tend to stick with the traditional values that made America great.

When I was in Germany, the rate of exchange was 3.74marks = 1 dollar, today it's 1.35 marks = 1 dollar. Our currency is failing when compared to almost every other currency. Our way of life is erroding all around us. Government has taken over soooo many things that the private sector used to run, health care records, health care insurance, entitlements for the those meeting government definitions as needy. They have poked their nose into everything, regulating car emmissions, pollutants of everything from air to noise, energy, fuels of all kinds, schools. the work place (OSHA), the banking industry (deregulation of the banking industry occurred during the Clinton Administration), the fed has injected so much artificial sweetner into the mix that nobody is quite sure what will happen, industry in general is so regulated it's actually more profitable to build a factory over in China and use Chinese labor, you have an unholy relationship between the federal government and organized labor, an unnatural relationship between the scientific community and the federal government generating the green agenda and choking the life out of the oil, natural gas and electical industries, they regulate coal, food, drugs, livestock, farming, transportation (automobiles up through air travel), they have set themselves up as experts in morality, redefined the seperation of church and state clause, redefined marriage and what a family really is, (under the new definition it is any combination of flora and fauna), elevated minorities and the handicapped to near godhood, they regulate TV, radio, rivers, lakes, forrests, water, grasslands, wildlife, immigration, one could literally could go on and on.

All these things cost the taxpayer trillions to administrate and regulate, in fact the government itself is drowning in regulations and expense. We have stood by and watched over regulation and over taxation cripple our proud nation.

SOME of us have never liked the path America has been on since we started to chase the pipe dream dubbed "THE GREAT SOCIETY". Once we started down that path we assured ourself of financial ruin. The fact is the republicans have managed to wake up and the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reids have not. Either way, it's a nightmare landscape. The president of the United States and the democratic party blame the republicans for every ill we suffer. The rhetoric is Hitleresque, and no less destructive than the poison that he spewed in the buildup to world war II. Maybe one our democratic supporting geniuses wouldn't mind to take the time to explain to us how public officials can uphold their solemn oath to uphold the constitution and protect the rights of all citizens while they are publicly declaring anything not liberal as unamerican. How can they uphold liberal agendas, while villainizing the characters of traditional conservatives and still fulfill their oath? I submit it's impossible. What kind of America is that? Wait I remember, it's the fundamentally transformed America. I'm voting against it

















.

[TheRealVille]

:lmao: You are pathetic, RV. The Soviets loved comrades like you. You are sounding more and more like the vile Mr. Hoffa, Jr. If you had more than a pea for a brain, you would seek to debate dimwits and steer clear of deeper waters.

Good luck with the Secret Service.

[Hoot Gibson]

In my email to the White House about your rhetoric, I informed them that you seemed very inflamed about the President, and getting more irrational and hostile toward Mr. Obama at every turn.

This is a classic example of the type of person who will be voting for President Obama next fall. Can you imagine a country full of people like this who would be willing to use the federal government's resources against a fellow American because they get their feelings hurt by losing debate after debate on an internet web site? Thank God, RV is not running this country. People who cannot control their emotions should not be debating politics or religion.

[TheRealThing]

That's what I'm saying, the US is not regulated by the Bible. I don't have an argument with god, because there is none. At least not a christian god. The bible isn't a US law book. Again, god's law doesn't apply to the US, as far as our laws go. You will find nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or any other US papers that the bible is where our rules and laws come from.

THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (to be protected and upheld by law), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language" and "the most potent and consequential words in American history".

The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized people throughout the world, and came to represent a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

THE greatest president of all time tends to take a different view than you. If Lincoln says we should interpret the entire constitution document through this one sentence that's good enough for me.