Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Dammit, There Goes Obama Being Intelligent Again

Thomas Lindaman weighs in on Libya. 

Guess what he does? He goes into his usual "Obama is not a leader" spiel.  And again taking the talking points from the right-wing pundits.

For those of you just tuning in, this is what's been going on:

Obama: "We're meeting with allies discussing options, meanwhile we're moving assets into position to act."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Dithering!"
McCain: "Bomb them already!"

Then, a couple of days later...

Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Obama is letting the rebels get crushed. He should have put up a no fly zone already."
Lindaman: "He's weak and indecisive!"
Obama: "The UN and I have a group of nations ready to act. We will be assisting them."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "We should be leading the way!"
McCain: "Why is he letting someone else run the show?"

Then, a couple of days later...

Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "No exit strategy. It's too little too late."
Obama: "We've established a no fly zone, the rebels are advancing and we'll be handing it over to the allies."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Who are these rebels? Should we be helping them at all? Quadaffi was an okay guy. This was a huge mistake."

Staying out altogether and watching Quadaffi level Benghazi is not an option. Going in and removing Quadaffi by ourselves is not an option (to do so de-legitimizes the entire Libyan revolutionary movement).

For the right-wingers claiming there was no clear objective:  I think "preventing a massacre of civilians and doing what we can to support their revolt without getting directly, disastrously involved" is a pretty clear objective. "Remove Quadaffi or do nothing" are not the only options.  Have you considered that the objectives might be wider than Libya? Imagine if the US, the UN, and NATO had sat out and watched Quadaffi crush his revolt.

Congressional Republicans, first against the "unconstitutional" war in Libya, then concerned over too much US involvement, then against mission creep, now want US forces to take a more active role.  Give them a break. Sometimes it's hard to pin down how to be opposed to what Obama's doing 100% of the time.  Hey, Teabaggers!  Obama wants to take away your right to point your pistol at yourself while cleaning it loaded!

The right-wing tards are realizing that Americans are failing them yet again, in not getting furious at Obama for going into Libya and then handing off control to NATO.  So, now they're demanding that Obama do more, just because they need to complain about "something" that he's doing in Libya.  You have to feel bad for the right-wingers, you really do.

Obama is well within the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. He doesn't have to withdraw until May 19, unless Congress approves before then.  Our actions in Libya are pursuant to treaty obligations to the UN and NATO. International treaties made pursuant to the Constitution are equal in force to the Constitution (Article VI). Why do some Republicans want to violate the Constitution by preventing Obama from acting to fulfill our treaty obligations? Do Republicans hate the Constitution?  The President doesn't need congressional authorization according to the War Powers Act, so he's fine here. Congressional support in this case is entirely political and is why it's probably good that the War Powers Act exists. This way the President can use our military in a more agile fashion and not have to worry about purely political stonewalling in congress.

Trying to compare Libya with Iraq is funny, too.  The UN refused to authorize support for the Iraq invasion, and several of our allies refused to help us because of that.  The UN asked us to participate in Libya.  There have also been relatively low amounts of protests, compared to Iraq which created possibly the largest world wide simultaneous protests ever.  And it passed the Security Council which should be all the international recognition you need. Bush's war is still considered illegal by many in the international community for this reason. Detractors can't say the same about Obama's, even if they disagree with it. 

Most of the Republicans supported the no fly zone when they didn't think he'd do it. Then when he did it, they withdrew support. Then when he wound down our role, they said he should take a bigger role.

And if his incursion goes beyond 60 days and starts to look like a bad idea... then Congress will have to approve further funding. And I find it doubtful that Democrats will question everyone's patriotism in not funding this war, like the Republicans did with every military spending bill from 2003 onward.

I really liked how the right wing was screaming about how Obama was being a pussy and not doing anything in Libya... right up until we started bombing Libya. Then, all of the sudden, he was attacking another nation unconstitutionally and needed to be stopped.

It just seems weird to see the right-wingers suddenly join the anti-war crowd.  It's a real conundrum. On the one hand, they would gladly destroy the entire nation to discredit the Captivating Kenyan, and on the other hand, their soldier fetish means they have to "support the troops" 100%. What's a bagger to do?

President Sarkozy really went above and beyond to get international light shed on this situation and garner support! Why, he even got the help of the US and the UK!  Oh, and for you right-wingers attempting to say Obama pulled other nations into this:  Obama didn't "get other nations involved"... it was the exact opposite.  Just because we're the largest power, doesn't mean we are the instigator.

Bush: Made shit up, pushed us into a war without support from the region, from the UN or anyone else.
Obama: Has support from NATO, the UN, the Arab League, the regional powers and the Libyan people.
Bush: Unilateral military action, involving a bloody ground force occupation, costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of civilian lives.
Obama: Multilateral action, focusing on air power and naval strikes.

In short, this is how you should wage war if you're the USA.

I hope you retards in the GOP are paying attention.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Try It Yourself, You May Like It

Thomas Lindaman writes:

The Left has accused Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker of many things, most of them untrue. Yet, no one but the Left could have cooked up this one.

It starts with the apparent suicide of Jeri-Lynn Betts, an early childhood teacher from the Watertown school district. She had a history of depression and was greatly distressed by the current budget situation, especially concerning what it would do to the teaching jobs in Wisconsin. After her death, people suggested...you guessed it, Scott Walker was to blame.

Seriously? That's your next big attack on Walker?

Depression and suicide are serious matters, folks. For anyone to even suggest Walker had anything to do with Betts' suicide is stretching the credibility of the anti-Walker crowd. Whatever good points you guys have made are going to be undercut by the people who think Walker had anything to do with the suicide. Unless you denounce these folks, like
the TEA Party denounces racism in their ranks, you're going to be tainted by their statements.

And to anyone who really thinks Walker's actions had anything to do with Betts' suicide, you need to really think carefully about this. Put aside your partisanship and give an honest assessment of the situation. If you think about it and still believe Walker is responsible, so be it, but understand that kind of thinking is no different than Republicans and conservatives who blame everything bad in their lives on Barack Obama. Some things transcend politics. This is one of them. To try to make any kind of political hay out of it is beyond contemptible.

Your own source link states that Betts' own colleagues were stating she was distraught over Walker's policies.  Colleagues, not "Leftists."

The Tea Party has yet to denounce racism in their ranks.  In fact, all you yourself have ever done when you jumped on the astroturf teabagger bandwagon was fall all over yourself to praise and/or defend the proven racists in your ranks.  Oh, and here's a recent example of racism in your ranks.

And you right-wingers used up any implications about political hay when you exploited 9/11.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Nope, No Double Standard

Thomas Lindaman writes:

The latest sting video by James O'Keefe exposing NPR has the media world buzzing, and not necessarily in a good way. As one might expect, Leftists are complaining about O'Keefe's video, alleging there were edits made to take certain comments out of context and make them sound worse than they actually were. These are all legitimate beefs as far as
I'm concerned, especially if they're based on fact and not bluster.

"Alleging"?  It's been proven!  That link is sometimes called a "citation", folks.  You'll see why I'm pointing this out in just a second.

But, I do have to take issue with the Left on this because they're holding someone who does what they accuse O'Keefe of doing to a different standard, solely because of his political ideology. This individual has manufactured scenes, done clever edits to make things appear to have happened in a certain order that didn't, and generally attempted to push
a particular point of view, regardless of the truth.

That individual is Michael Moore.

In "Roger and Me," Moore gives the impression that he was at a GM stockholders meeting with Roger Smith and his microphone was cut off at Smith's insistence. Transcripts of the meeting show Moore wasn't in attendance, thus his microphone wasn't cut off when he asked a question. It was all fabricated for the movie.

Citation, please.

In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore does slick editing to film a meeting with Charlton Heston about guns and gun control to take different scenes out of order and put them in a way that made Heston look less than stellar.

The meeting between him and Heston is completely uncut (it's only one camera during the interview).  The only thing that could be considered alteration was filming a new frontal shot of Moore holding the photograph.  Considering that doesn't change the context of what was going on (Heston was walking away and not speaking), you're full of it.

He was also guilty of fabricating a scene in the movie where he appears to get a rifle at a bank the same day he requests one, except he had to make special arrangements for that to happen.

What Moore did in that bank is exactly what anyone else could do.  The bank was also a federal firearms dealer. The only "special arrangement" that was any different from any other Joe Schmoe was that he had to get permission to film inside the building.  Aside from that, you could have walked into that bank and done the exact same thing.

In "Fahrenheit 911," Moore plays fast and loose with the timeline of 9/11 and with statements and actions President George W. Bush made.

Citation, please.

In "Sicko," Moore tells story after story about people allegedly denied health care because of insurance companies, only to find a number of those people weren't insured at the time of their care.

Citation, please.  What you're stating could actually prove Moore's point.

In "Capitalism: A Love Story," he blames Ronald Reagan for the state of the economy today, all the while ignoring or downplaying the efforts of Democrats in the 1990s that lead to the current economic problems.

Citation, please.

And this guy is speaking "truth to power" while O'Keefe is just a "conservative liar"?

I have misgivings about O'Keefe's style and alleged misdeeds, and if he's proven to be a conservative version of Michael Moore, I'll gladly criticize him in the same vein I criticize Moore.

Will you Leftists do the same to Moore?

Depends.  So far you haven't backed up anything you've stated.  Pretty obvious why you won't, since it gets so easily shot down.
Oh, and by "citation" I don't mean dragging in a link to Moorewatch's main page. *snicker*

Sunday, March 13, 2011

But I Totally Love America!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

There's a new Leftist narrative starting to make its way into the public consciousness. It seems the Left doesn't believe we're running out of money, but rather that the money isn't getting spent on the right things. Van Jones has said it. Michael Moore has said it. And now New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has said it.

The problem is we actually are broke as a country. Just because companies make profits, people are rich, and we can still borrow money, it doesn't mean the economy is rosy. If anything, those situations and the simplistic notions Leftists draw from them mask the real problem. We are still spending more than we take in and hoping we can shift money around so we can cover all the bills in the short term, just like some people do today. It may keep the creditors off our backs for a little while, but eventually something happens that causes the house of cards to fall in on itself.

Right now, there are a lot of things that could cause our national economy to fall apart. Unrest in the Middle East, oil and gas prices on the rise, the number of people on the public dole, unemployment, unnecessary federal spending, all of these and other factors stack up to a monumental fiscal mess.

And what does Krugman suggest? Spend more now that will equate to savings later.

Yeah, that might work, provided we ever get to later. Right now, I'm not sure we can safely make that assumption because we're not willing to make the tough choices now that will shore up the economy down the road. Oh, we agree to it in theory, but in practice...not so much. Just look at the attempts to shave billions off the federal budget proposed by Democrats and Republicans. Both proposals are half-hearted and seek to save sacred cows for their side. Now isn't the time to ignore waste because we like the outcome. If we're going to get serious about having an economic future, we need to turn sacred cows into holy hamburger.

Including the sacred cows of Leftists like Jones, Moore, and Krugman.

Glad you have such high hopes for our country.  lol

The List Of Job Creating, Small Government Proposals By The GOP To Save America

1. Ban/Restrict abortion
2. Redefine rape
3. End Net Neutrality
4. Ban Gay Marriage
5. Investigate Muslims
6. Voter ID
7. Secession
8. Make Obama show his birth certificate...again...everyday... forever
9. Repeal Union Rights
10.Restrict voting ability of college students
11.De-fund Obama's Teleprompter (seriously)
12.De-fund NPR and PBS.
13.Declare Global warming a fraud.
14.Repeal Healthcare.
15.Read the Constitution...except for that amendment...and that one...that one too
16.Raise taxes on Girl Scouts.
17.Budget cuts to kill 1 million jobs.
18.Get rid of fluorescent light bulbs.
19.Ban Sharia law.
20.Force women to see sonograms of their soon-to-be aborted fetuses.
21.Renew Patriot act.
22.Restore F35's second engine.
23.Eliminate Assenge.
24.Criminalize miscarriages
25.Defund Planned Parenthood
26.Declare English America's official language
27.Put "In God We Trust" on all Federal Buildings
28.Extend Bush tax cuts for top earners.
29.Deny foodstamps to families of workers who go on strike
30.Relax child labor laws
31.Push for a government shutdown by attaching riders to the budget bill that they previously agreed to drop
32:Returning to Styrofoam cups in the cafeteria, in place of biodegradable cups.
33:Make English the official language . . .because it will save the environment. No, really.

More proposals will be added as the GOP finds new ways to secure your rights as an individual and create jobs!

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Success Is NOT A Success!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Since the beginning of the media coverage of the Wisconsin budget battle between Governor Scott Walker and the unions, there's been a whispering campaign that is now becoming a full blown shout-fest. The Left wants the unions to become the Leftist equivalent of the TEA Party. Judging from the commentary on Politico, the Left is warning of Walker "waking a sleeping giant" and his electoral doom is all but certain once that giant awakes and gets moving.

I have three words for any Leftist who believes that: The Coffee Party.

Remember when The Coffee Party was supposed to be the Leftist counterpart to the TEA Party? Yeah. That lasted for about a month before the Left realized it just wasn't taking off like they'd hoped. Seriously, aside from this blog post, when was the last time you hear anyone mention the Coffee Party?

The Coffee Party is "Leftist"??  Do you even know what the Coffee Party stands for, exactly?

The Coffee Party doesn't stand for any side in particular. It's more about methodology than actual political posturing.

They don't support any specific policies aside from being civil.  They were formed for the sake of bringing decency and manners back to politics, without having an actual policy agenda.

So naturally that would be anti-Teabagger, yeah. Since the Teabaggers are an astroturfed right-wing indecent embarrassment.  But the Coffee Party being "Leftist"?  Pffft.

People are not interested in the Coffee Party because their name alone makes it clear that they are a reaction to the Teabaggers, which is a movement that doesn't deserve a reaction. They should have avoided the whole beverage thing.

The Coffee Party is just a bunch of people saying: "These Teabaggers will see the light if we just calmly reason with them."

Of course, with the Teabaggers being what they are, that was a losing proposition.  Doomed to fail.

Although the Wisconsin union protests are encouraging, I honestly don't think the union movement is strong enough to be a Leftist TEA Party mainly because the union movement isn't that strong right now. With dropping membership and a badly damaged image over the past couple of decades, the time when unions were to be a feared political machine are pretty much over on a national level. Sure, you'll still have enclaves on a statewide level, but nationally unions are becoming dinosaurs.

And that's who you want to be the next TEA Party?

There is another reason why the labor movement will not be successful as a TEA Party substitute, that being a fundamental difference between the two movements. Say what you will about the TEA Party, they are motivated by a love of country and a desire to put the country back on the right financial course.

Ahhh... the Teabaggers. As long as their leaders are spouting nonsense about abortion, Mexicans, unions and liberals, the tea party is satiated. They'll whine about "fiscal responsibility" and then focus almost completely on social bigotry and repression.  They are the worst hypocrites of all.

From what we've seen and heard from the union movement recently, they seem more motivated by a love of money regardless of the fiscal consequences. Of course, they don't come out and say that because it would undercut their credibility as "hard working average Americans."

Too bad the actions of unions actually do help the American worker.  A fact that you guys absolutely hate, since you hate workers' rights, and always have.

Just like Air America failed to live up to its billing as a Leftist alternative to talk radio,

You're funny like the "Half Hour News Hour" was funny.  Remember that show?  It's the only show that was canceled faster than Limbaugh's TV show.

Citadel Broadcasting, the largest conservative network bar-none, and the third largest network in the USA, went bankrupt just like Air America, and it went bankrupt before Air America did.  Kind of funny how you just don't hear the hype on that, isn't it?

Anyways, certain types of people enjoy being justified in their actions by talk radio, and apparently liberals are less likely than conservatives to be that type. Not really that surprising.  Right-wingers like Fox News, which leans heavily to the right, while liberals like NPR, which has repeatedly proven to be neutral (albeit a bit dull). They are the most neutral network on the air. It's true that some conservatives call them liberal... because NPR tells the truth, and right-wingers consider anything that isn't conservative propaganda to be some kind of liberal conspiracy.

Liberals listen to neutral stations like NPR, because Liberals don't care to hear orders for daily talking points delivered from on high.  Why switch from NPR to a scratchy AM station?

Here's a little factoid about Limbaugh's radio show:  To launch Limbaugh's radio show, Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks -- the same folks who syndicate wingnut du jour Glen Beck -- gave Limbaugh's three hours away -- that's right, no cash -- to local radio stations, mostly in medium and smaller markets, back in the early 1990's.

So, a local talk station got Rush's show for zilch. In exchange, Premiere took for itself much of the local station's available advertising time (roughly 15 minutes an hour) and packed the show with national ads it had already pre-sold.

Rightwing radio was heavily funded by the likes of Richard Scaife for many years before they found a way to make it profitable.  Air America was not being able to survive without significant subsidies from power brokers. It's a problem the right wing doesn't have.  The right wing, after all, is populated by abject morons. They fund the superchurches and every other scam that their deceptive masters favor. So, it's no coincidence that right wingnuts have a ready market: the great stupidity of their market is their friend.

Meanwhile: Beck is fired, O'Reilly is subordinate to his parody, Rush is deaf due to drugs and lost his TV show ages ago... while Maddow and Ed Shultz have shows, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are loved and popular, and Al Franken is a Senator.  Good god, man... Franken is really a threat to you right-wingers, isn't he?  I'm loving this.  He's good enough, he's smart enough, and gosh darn it, Republicans hate him. At least he doesn't shrink from it. Being hated by Republicans is a badge of honor.

Randi Rhodes went onto Premiere.  Thom Hartmann to Dial Global, joining Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz and Bill Press.  Franken is a Senator.  Maddow has a better deal with MSNBC. Air America didn't work.  But like a dandelion, their seeds have been spread. The company fails, the idea continues.

just like the Huffington Post failed to be an alternative to the Drudge Report,

Because unlike the Drudge Report, it's a legitimate publication?

Leftists will fail if they try to make the union movement into a Leftist version of the TEA Party for the same reason the other two ventures I mentioned failed.

Failed like Glenn Beck? lol

The Left doesn't understand Americans as well as they think they do.

True, "The Left" needs to understand that a large segment of Americans aren't too bright. But it's hard for the left to cater to the stupid. The right-wingers have cornered that market.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

This Omitted Link Is PROOOOF!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Labor unions have jumped the shark. And they have Michael Moore to thank for it.

Moore's appearance in Wisconsin yesterday may have given the union folks a spiritual lift, but if they knew Moore's history with union labor, they might have told him to stay away.

And spoil the surprise?

Seems Moore wasn't too keen on using union labor during the filming of his documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story."

Of course, some might say this was a one-time thing and that Moore's history of being pro-labor makes up for it. Not so much.

How about the fact that this particular union didn't have the crew that Moore needed for filming documentaries?  Funny how you "accidentally" left out that obvious fact.

Seems Moore has a history of saying he supports labor unions, but he never quite acts on it.


This is further undeniable proof that Lindaman never checks his own sources.  The link Lindaman gave (a book from a right-wing shill), has the relevant anti-union pages omitted.  ROFL!  How convenient, since those pages have nothing to substantiate your claim But then, hearsay is usually the only way you can make any claims about "leftists," since the actual facts say otherwise.

Furthermore, Moore talks about his personal wealth

SO?  Do you have any idea on how irony is used for comedic effect?  Is that why right-wingers are so unfunny?

while doing his best to come off as a common man. Personally, I have no problem with Moore making money doing what he does, but when he's playing both sides of the fence as he does, it should raise some eyebrows, especially among the union protesters.

The fact that it didn't speaks volumes.

It speaks volumes that they know you right-wing spunkgulps aren't fooling them. 

Moore's beef with one particular union is a legitimate one.  If a union doesn't have the workers he needs, it's impossible to use that union.

Moore's films and TV shows have always been union.  Your copypaste of blatherings from right-wing websites that popped up after the Wisconsin rally (which brought in higher numbers than Beck's rally, by the way) can't change that fact.

Learn To Read First, Right-Wingers

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Dear Michael,

It's rare that I agree with you on anything you say. However, sometimes you do say something that makes me nod my head in agreement. During a recent interview, you said the following:

They're sitting on the money, they're using it for their own -- they're putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We've allowed them to take that. That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it.

There was more to what Moore said:

"What’s happened is that we’ve allowed a vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people and their not circulating that cash. If you don’t believe that go try and get a loan right now."

"I think that we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates. We need to see these jobs as something that we own. That we collectively own as Americans. And you just can’t steal our jobs and take them someplace else."

At first, I scoffed at the notion. After all, as a conservative and a capitalist, why would I support the collective ownership of wealth? Then, I was enlightened. You're absolutely right, Michael. The rich should share their wealth with everyone.

And I can think of no better person to lead by example than, well, you.

According to CelebrityWealth.com, your net worth is estimated to be $50 million. Granted, that's not Bill Gates money, but it's not too shabby a nest egg. As one of the "common people" you so love to claim to represent, I believe I'm entitled to at least some of that nest egg.

For example, I have accumulated medical bills over the past few months. As the champion of the "little guy" in your film "Sicko" as you took on the health care system in America, I would think you'd whip out your checkbook and pay them all.

Also, I have credit card debt. As the champion of the "little guy" in your film "Capitalism: A Love Story" as you took on big banks, I think you'd be more than willing to hand over your Visa and pay off my debt.

More importantly, though, think of the example you'd be setting for wealthy people of your political persuasion. Why, I'm sure Barbra Streisand would be more than willing to hand over her...I mean our money to people like me. She's only going to keep it for herself, right? Ditto with Oprah, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and other celebrities who swing to the left. All they need is someone to lead them.

I believe that someone is you, Michael.

I propose we meet and hammer out the specifics of this arrangement. Let's say, a nice steakhouse in New York City. You'll pay for me to fly out there, put me up in a really nice hotel, take me shopping for some fine clothes to wear to the meeting, and be kind enough to pick up the entire tab without so much as a second thought.

After all, it's our money, right?


Thomas Lindaman

I love it when Lindaman makes posts like these, because it shows how truly clueless he is.

Lindaman, you delightful dumbass: Is Moore exempting himself from the tax? No? Then shut up. All other concerns are irrelevant.  Even if his net worth comes in below the proposed tax, he's not a hypocrite for proposing it.

Moore is advocating for fair taxation and that would affect him. He would be paying more taxes. Show us where in your tired cliched argument that Moore is saying "Everyone should pay higher taxes, except me."  If the rich are the only ones allowed a say in how much the rich are taxed, how much do you think they'll end up paying? If your answer isn't a negative number, you're either stupid or lying.

Really, do you think that letter was particularly smart, oh-so-original, or clever? Moore is clearly stating that wealthy people should pay a higher percentage. He is wealthy. Therefore, he is saying that he should also pay a higher percentage.  Which is why anyone calling him a hypocrite, like you, is a literal retard. 

So, your attempt at making fun of him falls on its face extremely  hard.

Good god, Teatards are dumb.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Scene Unseen

Thomas Lindaman writes:

This past Saturday, MoveOn.org organized a series of pro-union rallies in every state capitol in the country designed to show support for the public sector union workers in Wisconsin. As a working man who happens to live in a state capitol, I decided to do what any red-blooded American would do.

I crashed the rally.

Before I go any further, I should clarify I am not anti-union nor am I anti-teacher, anti-worker, or whatever other label the Left wants to slap on people like me. I am, however, pro-taxpayer, and when it comes to public sector unions, we're dealing with union employees whose benefits are paid by taxpayers. In a situation like that, taxpayers are often not represented well, if at all, when public sector unions make demands, which gives the public sector unions a decided advantage at the negotiating table.

That dynamic changed in Wisconsin with the election of Scott Walker and Republicans in their legislature. Instead of having an easy path to getting what they want, public sector unions finally had to put up a bit of a struggle, especially after Walker made it clear he was going to ask unions to make concessions as a means to try to get state spending under control. One of those concessions was to have the public sector unions give up collective bargaining except when it came to salaries. Unions, and MoveOn.org, objected.
The union agreed to every freaking cut Walker wanted to make, you right-wing idiots! It doesn't fit his narrative so he keeps forgetting it. Probably not on purpose because if he did remember it, it may require him to re-think his narrative and that would just rock his fragile world. Can you imagine a world where people stop thinking perhaps unions aren't so bad? Truly terrifying.

That brings us to the union rallies across the country. For the most part, it was a pretty civil affair. There were occasional snide comments about "corporate fat cats" and "politicians in the back pocket of Big Business" (oh, and the occasional shouting match and vague threats of violence against me for carrying a sign reading "Real workers don't have 'sick-ins.'"), but most left me alone.

From my vantage point, I saw and heard a lot of things that gave me pause. First, the union protesters kept trying to seamlessly fuse the public sector unions and the private sector unions, even though there are distinct differences between the two. I understand they wanted to show solidarity with their union brethren in Wisconsin, but it's like swapping a German Shepherd with a French poodle to guard your property. Sure, they're both dogs, but the differences between the two are stark. Plus, the poodle would surrender at the slightest sign of trouble.

Second, the union speakers were complaining about matters that unions been complaining about for decades. Yet, things aren't getting any better. To me, that's a sign of the failure of unions across the country, public and private. With union membership declining, having the same message with the same failure rate isn't a good sign. In a way, unions are becoming dinosaurs, and they may be heading for the same fate as the dinosaurs unless they change their approach.

Judging from the people at the rally on Saturday, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Third, there are still people within unions who try to act as "enforcers," but they don't know how to handle people who aren't afraid of them or who understand their tactics and have ways to overcome them. I did have a couple of minor run-ins with union folks who didn't like my sign or my position on the Wisconsin situation, so they tried to get me to leave through intimidation, by threat of physical harm or legal repercussions. When I presented a firm challenge to their authority, the "enforcers" became toothless and the fight went out of them.

Surely you have some video or audio to back this up, right? No?

How about a witness? Oh, that's right. You have no friends.
The reason I can confidently say Lindaman is blatantly lying here, is because Lindaman is a guy who got called out, in a frigging chatroom no less, to a face-to-face with someone and he shit his pants cowering out of it. lol
You won't see a shred of evidence from Lindaman that this fantasy of his ever happened. Not a shred.

All in all, it was an interesting afternoon among the union folks. We may not have agreed, but the exercise of free speech was refreshing in an era where people take the exchange of ideas for granted.

1. Corporate and wealthy taxation at a historic low.
2. Corporate profits at historic highs.
3. Wealthy incomes accelerating (not just increasing)
4. Working and middle class incomes plummeting
5. Corporations not hiring despite swimming in cash
6. Corporations still moving operations overseas despite one of the most business friendly atmospheres in US history.
7. Attacks on ANY attempt at people to band together and bargain for better conditions.
8. Almost complete corporate control of the media.
9. Constant attack on public education or any mechanism that might stand any chance of getting people to think for themselves.

Yes, somehow, it is the rich and corporations who are being mistreated.

It's the southern manipulation of poor whites against blacks getting any rights all over again, except now their masters are turning them on themselves.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.