Last edited by Walter; 02-24-11 at 03:02 AM.
Maybe they're back
Ever check out Trumka? He sure reminds me of a mobster.
HowStuffWorks "How the Mafia Works"
One of the most notorious Mafia schemes was the infiltration of labor unions. For several decades, it is believed that every major construction project in New York City was controlled by the Mafia. Mobsters paid off or threatened union leaders to get a piece of the action whenever a union group got a construction job, and they sometimes made their way into the ranks of leadership themselves. And once the Mafia had its grip firmly on a union, it could control an entire industry. Mafioso could get workers to slow or halt construction if contractors or developers didn't make the right payoffs, and they had access to huge union pension funds. At one point, the Mafia could have brought nearly all construction and shipping in the United States to a halt. But the last 20 years have seen the federal government crack down on Mafia-union connections to a great extent.
Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
Ah yes, that's James O'Keefe you are talking about, right? It's not? But he did the same thing. Why did you support him misrepresenting himself, and editing a conversation he had at an ACORN office to make it look like a crime had been committed, when it hadn't? Why did you support Andrew Breitbart editing a speech that Shirley Sherrod had made in order to make her look like a racist, which she isn't?small Political Rag that allowed one of its reporters to misrepresent themselves as first someone other than they were and next as a hard news journalists when in reality they are more in line with the National Enquirer
You see, this kind of crap works both ways. I see many on the right supporting these kinds of actions when it's against their opponents on the left, but when it's done to them by the opposition, the faux rage is unbelievable. And yea, the Liberals do the same. So, I have one question to ask. No, make that two, one for the Liberals and another for the Conservatives:
1) To the Conservatives: When are you going to repudiate O'Keefe and Breitbart, and stop supporting him?
2) To the Liberals: When are you going to repudiate what was done to Governor Walker, and stop supporting that?
Come on, folks. You can't have one standard for yourself, and another standard for your opponents. Those who do this kind of crap, are either scumbags who deserved to be shunned by all, or they are heroes to be supported and adored. You can't have it both ways, where some are heroes and others are goats, depending on whether he is a Democrat or Republican. That's hyperpartisan BS. But, in the end, I am sure that some are going to tell me that what I am posting is BS, and explain to me the circumstances in which they CAN have it both ways, and how it's only right that SOME people who do this are heroes, and others are goats, depending on political affiliation. Believe me. I DO want to hear this, just for the LULZ I will get from it. So who wants to go first?
In short, if you supported your own people doing crap like this, then just STFU when it's the other way around.
Last edited by danarhea; 02-24-11 at 03:49 AM.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
“The more you know, the harder it is to take decisive action. Once you become informed, you start seeing complexities and shades of gray. You realize that nothing is as clear and simple as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing.” - Bill Watterson
Who Is Chicago Ted?
The call does further my distaste for Walker. He's awfully comfortable having a lengthy and friendly conversation with somebody urging him to crush the innocent people who wholeheartedly disagree with what's happening in that state. What a typical jerk. And I think that Barb's comment that Walker didn't know Koch donated to his campaign is ridiculous. That's like you not knowing how you got home last night.
A working class hero is something to be
For example, in this case, if the person just put himself forth as a wealthy republican donor rather than attempting to impersonate a specific person I'd have less of an issue with his action. Still not "no" issue, and I wasn't completely without issue with Breitbart's guy either, but I think pretending to be a specific factual person is a bit worse than a more generalized deception as you're not just assuming a new identity but stealing someone elses essentially.
I think often you have to look at what is being uncovered as well, as again things don't function in a vacuum. For example, if what he did on the phone regarding donors was an actual legitimate breakage of the law (and not just some left wing blogger speculating it MIGHT be) then I have far more issues with him because he actually did something illegal. On the flip side, a lot of what he said is as likely to be bluff and bluster as legitiamte strategy and until he actually ATTEMPTS it its not something I would get upset about. This is in part why I'm not fond of these type of styled "stings" when its just to get information, because the fact the information is being gained in a fraudulent way causes the legitimacy, hoensty, and seriousness of things it finds out to be called into question thus making it more useful for propoganda than any kind of honest reporting.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
I support both... it's fair for O'Keefe to do it and it was fair when these bloggers did it to Walker. Difference is, the O'Keefe stuff actually found out very damning truths, and it's reverberations were felt all the way to Washington --- so much so ACORN no longer exists. The Walker phone call --- was boring, nothing really new here and he's said everything on that phone call that he's said in public to the press.
It's a fair tactic no matter who does it.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
Nothing like some good old fashion humor to liven up a everyone hates each other debate.
Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.