Friends of a Feather
Barrett, Doyle, and the President of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards (daughter of Ann Richards, former Pelosi staffer, married to SEIU thug, etc.).
Hat tip Charlie Sykes.
They’re friends with a feather? That’s weird.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1119 hrs
Please provide details about the multiple convictions of Richards’ husband for thuggishness.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1148 hrs
Must be the planning stages for November’s election theft. Everything is falling into place. Packing courts with Liberals, renaming ACORN, SEIU getting their battle plans….............................hummmmmmm. This should be interesting. With what Dil Doyle pulled yesterday with the unwanted train, and the way he announced it, sounds like he doesn’t much care for how things are supposed to be done.
The only thing missing is a laural wreath around Doyle’s dome.
All hail Caesar!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1225 hrs
Please provide details about the multiple convictions of Richards’ husband for thuggishness.
I second that. And by the way, accusations and internet rumors do not count as proof. You are well aware of the innocent until proven guilty thing.
All this picture is really saying is the three of them believe in a women’s choice. Not really a bad thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1322 hrs
Unless, of course, that “choice” is to deliver the baby to full term. If that is the case, you’re just another evil person who hates women…or Sarah Palin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1332 hrs
It looks like Jimbo has the largest set of hooters perhaps he should stay away from the deep fried pork chops and chocolate dipped bacon. Prime contestant for the worlds biggest loser and that is not an accusation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1341 hrs
Crusher looks at a pic of two guys and a gal, and first thing comes to his mind is one of the guy’s hooters and dipped bacon? Psychoanalysts, please adivse…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1513 hrs
The governor in a photo with someone from Planned Parenthood and someone who represents service employees? He’s got my vote.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 1552 hrs
Unless, of course, that “choice” is to deliver the baby to full term. If that is the case, you’re just another evil person who hates women
So I read this a few times, and can’t make sense of it. From what it sounds like to me, you are saying I am against women who decide to give birth. Or that these three people are against women giving birth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1554 hrs
Listen, if we have to stop the discussion to ask about every nonsensical comment here we’ll never get anywhere!
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 1555 hrs
Looking left reminds me of pigs wallowing in there own slop and discharging it into a fresh water lake hence the bacon.Center makes me think of all the babies that will never have the chance to suckle. looking right I see one big boob.
Any more therapy Joe Mamma
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1557 hrs
Thug: Noun-A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum
Nothing mentions a conviction of anything.
And the SEIU has engaged in thuggish behavior around the country.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1557 hrs
Anyone from an organization that directly advocates for working people is a thug to you, I’m sure. Or are there some that aren’t?
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 1604 hrs
LSTW…I’ll make it easy for you: you’re an idiot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1655 hrs
LSTW…I’ll make it easy for you
Make things easier for all of us and make some sense next time you put claws to keyboard, mkay?
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 1659 hrs
Make things easier for all of us and make some sense next time you put claws to keyboard, mkay?
Makes sense to me. You’d have to be an idiot to support (from left to right)Milwaukee’s milk carton mayor who never managed to get around to fixing those sewers that he campaigned on; A woman who advocates for killing babies that are inconvenient and is married to a known union thug (not all union members are thugs… just the ones who act that way are); and our current lying crap weasel of a Governor who has presided over the creation of a massive state debt and the hemorrhage of real jobs from Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1739 hrs
Makes sense to me.
Really? Which part of this makes sense to you, SoL?
Unless, of course, that “choice” is to deliver the baby to full term. If that is the case, you’re just another evil person who hates women
That was, after all, the comment in question.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 1741 hrs
Looks to me like he is saying that killing babies has nothing to do with women’s rights, and that people who think babies have a right to live are often vilified by the pro-abortion crowd.
Not all that mystical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1757 hrs
It looks to me like he’s having a seizure near a computer keyboard. At least your comment make some kind of sense.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 1800 hrs
Anyone from an organization that directly advocates for working people is a thug to you, I’m sure. Or are there some that aren’t?
Poor scott. Doesn’t read the newspapers or is blind. Or ignorant.
The SEIU has been involved in more than just organizing union members. google SEIU and violence and you get quite a few hits.
They also like to stifle people’s free speech.
Some people been hurt by the SEIU’s violence, other people have been harassed.
I realize that in your mind, scott, liberals can do no wrong and they sit around petting unicorns in their back yard while singing Kumbaya and eating a vegan meal.Posted by Dan on July 30, 2010 at 1931 hrs
So, are there organizations which directly advocate for working people that you don’t think are “thugs”? Any?
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 1940 hrs
So, are there organizations which directly advocate for working people that you don’t think are “thugs”? Any?
Trying to spin his comment that SEIU has done some despicable things into a global condemnation of all union or workers groups as thugs is an act of total dishonesty. It’s not what he said at all… and you know it.
I’d almost qualify as and act of intellectual thuggery.
Can’t you ever have an honest discourse about something you disagree with?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2002 hrs
Well, I figured the discussion would go like this. I’d ask you wtf you were talking bout with the whole “thug” thing. And you’d pile in some links—some maybe valid, some not—and demand that I admit whatever the hell it is you’re trying to say. And then I might say, gee, that does sound shitty. But is it enough reason for me to “admit” that unions representing working people are a bad idea or are all corrupt? I mean, it’s a big world out there. And I might post some shitty links about some group whose mission you like and demand that you denounce them. And then we’d get into a big pissing match about whose links are better and who is more of a partisan shitthead. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum, etc., etc.
Instead I thought maybe we could get to something quicker. I suspect that there are absolutely NO unions or labor groups who you believe are honest. If you admitted it, we’d get to the heart of my objection quicker: you’re just anti-union.
But the flaw in my plan is that it relies on logic—a principle which is only marginally adhered to in these discussions.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 2019 hrs
scott, were born an idiot or did just become an idiot as you became older?
Now you get all fouled mouth after you have been proven to be a fricking moron.
But I have to admit, when you throw a temper tantrum, you do it pretty good. Hell, you would put most 2 years old to shame when comes to throwing temper tantrumsPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2107 hrs
That was a remarkably content-free response, Dan. Thanks for that.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 2108 hrs
and scott, you are the expert on content free posts. Maybe one of these days you will actually have a well thought out post that people will say, “hey unlike the scarecrow, scott may actually have a brain”. But I suspect that won’t be happening anytime soon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2348 hrs
Well, I figured the discussion would go like this.
Well, since you already imagined the entire conversation and come up with a steaming fresh pile of false liberal stereotypes as the conclusion, I guess you are all done on this thread. Perhaps next time you can just imagine that we discussed it, that you were brilliant in your points, and that we all agreed with you…. then you could omit posting anything all together.
I’ll note that I said nothing even remotely like what you imagined, nor did anyone else… but that’s pretty much where a substantial amount of your opinions come from… your imagined perceptions of the way things are. Apparently, for you, reality is in the eye of the beholder… and then you wonder why you make people angry enough to spit, and why they rip on you with such gusto.
But the flaw in my plan is that it relies on logic
No, the flaw lies in your imagination and the liberal stereotypes you used to create your own reality. Making up imaginary arguments won’t get you far in the realm of logic.
In reality, there are good labor unions, and there are bad labor unions. Some work to create a partnership between employer and employee, some create better working environments, and some are mindless anti-capitalists who drive employers into bankruptcy and end up harming the people they claim to protect… some are even pro-Democrat Party goons and thugs who try to intimidate those folks who disagree with your president. That latter group is the one we are discussing…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 0047 hrs
In reality, there are good labor unions
Which ones?
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 0709 hrs
the three of them believe in a women’s choice
...to commit murder. You are right. That’s their belief.Posted by dad29 on July 31, 2010 at 0749 hrs
to commit murder.
Most folks just don’t see what you see.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 0802 hrs
If the discussion does not end up justifying scott’s (or any of the resident Liberals) opinions it is summarily invalid. No matter SEIU is known foe thuggish actions, they’re a union, and supposedly unions help downtrodden workers. They help them so much that the price of products made by them become astronomical. But I digress.
The picture of The Three Stooges can be summarized as (Curly)Barrett, as the incompetent fool, (Larry)Richards, as the champion of infanticide, and (Moe)Doyle as the tyrannical leader.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 0816 hrs
As I said, the real issue is that you don’t like unions.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 0819 hrs
Sure it is scott, whatever you say.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 0835 hrs
Well, you don’t, do you?
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 0839 hrs
In reality, there are good labor unions
Which ones?
Would you like me to list them alphabetically or numerically? Might take me awhile to research every union and labor group, but I’ll get right on it for you, Scott.
Better yet, why don’t you just imagine up a response, and then reply to that… it’ll save me days of work.
Which unions are good? Well, they are the ones that do more of the first two things I mentioned in the last paragraph of #27, and the ones that don’t do much of the last two things I mentioned. If the union leaves a trail of bankrupt employers and out of work employees in it’s wake, I’d say it was bad.
SEIU is a prime example of a generally bad union that often uses it’s members to push the political agenda of it’s masters at the DNC. That often benefits the national leadership, but not so much the membership.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 0936 hrs
Would you like me to list them alphabetically or numerically?
No, just one or two off the top of your head would be fine.
SEIU is a prime example of a generally bad union
That could be, I really don’t know. But when someone who (I believe) hates all labor unions tells me so, I’m inclined to take it with a grain of salt if you know what I mean.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 0940 hrs
to commit murder.
Most folks just don’t see what you see.
Not true at all. Most of the larger and more unbiased polling organization find that about 1/3 support abortion while about 1/2 are against it. That number fluctuates slightly, but not much. 2/3 don’t think that federal funding should pay for abortions. When shown pictures of various stages of development, roughly 3/4 say that anything after 4 weeks would be out, barring health considerations. That data has been reproduced in several different polling sets by groups like Gallup, CBS, CNN, and Rasmussen. You are free to imagine it as you like… I’m just offering you some other ideas.
The majority simply don’t believe in slaughter for the sake of convenience like you do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 0953 hrs
I don’t know what “against it” means. But in my book even pro-lifers who make exception for rape or incest cannot see abortion as literal murder. And the number of people who do not make these exceptions is surely not a majority of Americans.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 1008 hrs
But in my book even pro-lifers who make exception for rape or incest cannot see abortion as literal murder.
I think we are discovering that your book contains much fiction.
The Catholic church says “Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.”. They also state” Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder “”
Clearly, abortion is willfully bringing about the death of an innocent. The statement from the Catechism above have led me to believe that, in the extraordinarily rare cases where the continuation of pregnancy will cause the death of the mother, there exists a moral position for the mother to choose, as one life will be lost either way. That case is very rare. The area of abortion in the case of rape or incest leaves less room for exception, though I’d break from church doctrine to say that if a mothers mental health would be fatally impacted by the pregnancy, then a choice could be made.
Beyond that, abortion is murder. There are no exceptions made for convenience. While some people leave more room for doubt in the case of the mothers possible death or health risks, most people do not like abortion. One would have to be truly sick and immoral to actually champion abortion on demand… and most people don’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1137 hrs
WTF, people!!! This is just a damn picture! But because Charlie Sykes offers it up as “proof”, you guys go ape shit all over it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1154 hrs
Oh well, no one’s said it here so I am going to:
I think there are some readers here who claim to be “pro-life” yet wish the three pictured were killed.
Maybe even aborted.
Retroactive abortion, anyone?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1044 hrs
Don’t forget that planned parenthood got it’s start as a way to rid the world of the “undesireables” and look where most of the clinics are…just sayin that for libs that has to be a hard pill. The org that purports to be for choice started out as a way of ridding the world of non wealthy non white folks…but I suppose they also have no issues with grand dragons of the clan and supremacy groups such as the the race and the black panthers. They have all the bases covered though I suppose. Good to see libs are in such upstanding company. You could argue historically that many conservative groups have had their issues…unfortunately, many of the liberal company keepers are recent and/or ongoing.
Posted by fishaddict on August 01, 2010 at 1051 hrs
I think we are discovering that your book contains much fiction.
Indeed. Scott’s abortion nonsense has been extensively refuted in past B&S threads, but he clings to it anyway for no better reason than that it’s all the psychological cover he has to rationalize his position as somehow not evil. All you need to know about Scott on abortion is that, not too long ago, he said that 12-week abortions were fine for “any reason at all,” despite the fact that at 12 weeks human beings have heartbeats, fully-developed brains, and the ability to feel pain (http://rightcal.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/how-not-to-argue-abortion/).
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 01, 2010 at 1330 hrs
I think there are some readers here who claim to be “pro-life” yet wish the three pictured were killed.
Yes, those hate filled conservo-republicists and their murderous tea party allies just want the opposition slaughtered… and they love to stereotype people too.
Perhaps you should turn off the Ed Schultz Show more often and replace it with a bit of Sgt Schultz to reduce your stress. You are heading off the deep end.
btw… I am pro-life, and I am firmly against the death penalty… even for the most foolish of liberal pin heads. You are quite safe doc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1430 hrs
IMHO - the worst unions are the public employee unions. There really is no reason for unions there. It isn’t like being a state employee is like working in the gulag. There are also a myriad of employment laws, regulations, and agencies to protect them from those evil taxpayer employers. In effect, their salaries and union dues get paid by the taxpayers so that they can spend a lot of money to get people (Democrats) elected so that they will give them more money, better benefits, and make it harder to get fired. Quite a racket.
And yes, I realize that every government employee pays taxes. But not enough to pay for themselves. So instead of boosting the employment of those that are a net drain on the economy, we would be better off improving the economy and boosting private sector employment.
Just a couple of examples of SEIU ass-hattery…
Terrorizing a teen boy home alone because Dad (a Dem) worked for Bank of America
Local 2000 folks beating up a “n****r” handing out Gadsden flags in St. Louis. Police report. Video of the tail end of the beating.
SEIU endorsed IL Gov using Exec Order to force union vote for home health workers that take care of their own family members to boost dues. AFSCME was in on this one too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1454 hrs
the worst unions are the public employee unions.
Come on Mom, public employee unions and it’s members aren’t so bad. Son of Liberty is a member of a public employee union.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1506 hrs
They are the worst because they are:
a) completely unecessary
b) a self-perpetuation racket paid for 100% with taxpayer funds with the express purpose of getting more taxpayer funds at the same time that the private-sector taxpayer makes less, on average, than they do.You can make an argument that say, coal miners, need a union. But that rings pretty hollow for the folks working in City Hall.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1516 hrs
IMHO - the worst unions are the public employee unions. There really is no reason for unions there.
Actually, I disagree, though I must admit that I am a member of a public employee union, so my opinions may be biased. I’ll offer my reasoning and you may judge them as you will.
My union has agreed to binding arbitration and has agreed not to strike, so there is quite a different relationship formed than with a union that could threaten a business killing walk-out. We may not engage in any labor-related action outside of bargaining and arbitration… or legal action on behalf of the membership.
The main need for public sector unions is that the employees have little in the way of clout when it comes to wages and working conditions. You may sue your private employer, but we, in most cases, have no legal recourse against the government. Even when we are able to sue, the government can bring limitless resources to bear, all paid for by the taxpayers dollar. Public sector unions offer the employees a voice that they would not otherwise have.
Due to the nature of the arcane pension system, many long time public employees don’t even have the recourse to reasonably quit. In many cases, we do not pay for (nor are we eligible to receive) social security, and our pension is not portable. A 45 year old 20 year employee of city government could quit, but they would, in essence, be starting life over without any retirement beyond what they may have privately saved. This offers government a measure of control that private employers do not enjoy.
Another point is that labor laws are often difficult to enforce upon governmental entities. If you turned in your private employer for dumping a bucket of sewage in the lake, federal officials would respond quickly and issue serious fines. You’d be a protected whistle blower. If you did the same to the City of Milwaukee, you would be laughed at, and there would be no response at all. Same goes in many other cases of governmental misconduct. A union gives you the ability to have a public voice in those cases (I know that personally) and it will protect the employee from retribution as well.
Binding arbitration in lieu of the ability to strike or enact labor actions levels the playing field a lot for the union. We may not make ridiculous requests for pay increases or benefits. The employer would simply go to the arbitrator, offer comparisons to other similar employers, and we would be forced to accept what was offered. It’s a very different dynamic than that of the Mercury Marine union, or Harley Davidson, and a much more equitable relationship.
I can not speak for every public sector union the same way, but there are some that are quite reasonable, and well needed.
...but of course, I am biased here. Please feel free to offer your own thoughts. Let me add that we do NOT always endorse Democrats. In fact, we supported President Bush and we have just endorsed Scott Walker for governor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1522 hrs
Sorry ASOL… You and I agree on many things. This will not be one of them.
First. The public sector unions have simply refused to “share the pain” during this Great Recession. In fact, you (in the general sense) made gains while the rest of us are struggling. The Stimulus boosted states so they wouldn’t have to make any tough decisions about bloated agencies and payrolls. Further increasing our national debt and future tax burden.
Second. With all that, the public sector has almost guaranteed employement. In the words of Shirley Sherrod - When is the last time you ever heard of a government worker getting fired?
Third. Along with guaranteed employment. Public employees make more money and have better benefits than the private sector employees that largely pay for them. Further, few private sector firms have company-funded pensions any longer. The employees have their self-funded 401k - which is why it is portable. You could always lobby for the same thing if you want to be more mobile. You should have the exact same labor rules as the private sector does - employment at will.
Fourth. There are now more public sector employees than private sector employee.
These do not bode well for the economic future of the US.
That and the ass-hattery Marie Antionette acts of SEIU, AFSCME, and the WEAC/NEA…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1547 hrs
The public sector unions have simply refused to “share the pain” during this Great Recession.
Actually, we have seen large cuts in our work force and a reduction in our benefits. We have had no raise in two years, and we are expecting a 0% raise next year. Some of our training is now done off duty (unpaid) and our members now do many of the fire prevention and fire education duties that were the responsibility of jobs that no longer exist. We are not inflexible in our job descriptions as many unions are.
When is the last time you ever heard of a government worker getting fired?
We have lost 2 this year. Several last year as well. Obviously my job requires a greater degree of dedication to duty and the employees are naturally held to a higher standard… but when was the last time you had someone fired at your work place for getting a second DUI, or being away from home after they called in sick?We lose people all the time, and we also see our members fined heavily for transgressions (both at work and off of work) that would generally be ignored in the private sector.
Mind you, neomom, I am not complaining. Higher standards are expected, and I agree with the need for them. I am quite happy that our union does not operate in the same way that I often see other unions act… defending people who deserve to be terminated, or taking job actions against the very people who they work for (the public). I am quite sickened when I see teachers refuse to coach or write letters of recommendation for their students as a way to blackmail the taxpayer. I’m just saying that you are painting with a very broad brush in making that statement. Unions should be evaluated on an individual basis, both public and private.
Public employees make more money and have better benefits than the private sector employees that largely pay for them.
Depends on the job. Mine does not translate to the private sector, nor do many other government jobs. Am I saying public workers are underpaid? No… not at all. In general we have it quite good…. but again, a broad brush.
The employees have their self-funded 401k - which is why it is portable. You could always lobby for the same thing if you want to be more mobile. You should have the exact same labor rules as the private sector does - employment at will.
I have done just that, but the City makes those decisions, and it is not in their best interest to make it easy for us to seek other employment. I would happily accept a reduction in pay to have some of the same benefits that the private sector has… I could live where ever I wanted to live (I am currently restricted by residency), and I could safely apply to another municipality if I wished without harming my family economically or eliminating the possibility of retirement. The grass isn’t always greener…. sometimes it might be, but not always.
Like I said earlier in the discussion… there are many bad, greedy, and poorly run unions… some even use threats and violence to get what they want. There are also good unions out there. It’s best to check first before carpet bombing the whole bunch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1711 hrs
Scott’s abortion nonsense has been extensively refuted
You have tried anyway. And I think your vehement hatred of me stems from the fact that you can’t really accomplish it.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1713 hrs
I just have to reiterate… Scott, you consistently argue against caricatures of conservatives and fantasies (like that I or other commenters hate you (“hate” is a strong feeling that’s hardly worth emoting in the comments of a blog)) instead of actually making arguments. It’s fun to read, but a rather pitiful display of intellectual and emotional protectionism.
Cheers.
Posted by Owen on August 01, 2010 at 1720 hrs
I have never accused you of hating me, Owen. At least I don’t think so. Thus I’m not sure why you feel compelled to get into that. Calvin is another matter, however. Why don’t we ask him? And if he wishes to deny it, fine. I can only go by his comments on my own blog and on his as all the convincing I need that I am right about it.
And please don’t sit there and tell me I don’t “actually make arguments” here. I probably put more time and intellectual effort into commenting here than a healthy person should. You can say I’m abrasive, you can say I’m wrong, you can say whatever you want. But you can’t really say that i avoid making actual arguments. One only has to scroll up to my just-previous comment #38. Tell me I’m wrong, fine. Tell me I’m not making an intelligent argument? Sorry, no.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1728 hrs
ASOL - I am heartened that you are not a member of one of the more peevish unions. I suspect that after watching the marches on various state capitols by the teachers and other public unions, that you are not in the majority. That said, you still haven’t really laid out a compelling reason why public employees need a union. There are two possible exceptions because of safety concerns and that would be fire and police. With your residency requirement (stupid, I concur), I suspect you are in one of those. But even those can fight for some rather unnescessary things to promote their own employment numbers. I seem to recall some issues a few years ago in MKE regarding how many rode along on a call and something about whether or not a truck should go out with every paramedic call.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1748 hrs
Unfortunately, fire and police protection has some unusual requirements that do not often make sense when explained in a soundbite. Our unions often have to spend time educating the common council on the need for certain practices, staffing and equipment.
The issue you recall is still an issue now. Milwaukee has been rated in the top 5 metropolitan areas for Emergency Medical Services and heart attack/stroke survival. We also have an exceptional rate of survival for fire and trauma casualties (to include shooting victims not becoming homicide victims). Much of the reason for that is the quick response that we have for a medical call because a fire company is always sent to triage the situation. That is one of the benefits the public has gotten from our union fighting for job safety. We do not get paid extra for this, nor does it affect our staffing or overtime… we actually fought so that we could work more.
We did lose the issue of ladder truck staffing, and we now are forced to send three ladder trucks on a fire response rather than two.
If unions were not involved in issues like this, there would be little in the way of opposition when city or state government makes dangerous decisions. Certainly there are places where unions have gotten out of control, but I would just urge you to take a case by case approach. Sometimes an organized work force is a good thing, sometimes not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1845 hrs
Scott,
Do I hate you? Nope. Offline, I wish you nothing but happiness and success. Online, however, I’ll admit to giving you special attention, but it’s not because you’re such a rhetorical dynamo that you get under my angry neocon skin. Mostly I just find your way of arguing to be extraordinarily useful in diagramming just how arrogant, dishonest, hypocritical, and illogical leftist argumentation can be. I like to engage you because I know you’ll never fail to provide a golden example of why liberals are not to be taken seriously.
Owen’s observations are dead on - I’ve told you before that your act - and that’s what it is, an act - is getting stale and transparent. The jig’s up, Scott, and whether or not you want to turn your reputation around is up to you.
I will concede that there is one thing about you that angers me. I bring up the 12-week incident to you so often because it’s honestly one of the sickest, most evil things I’ve ever seen written in the WI blogosphere. Though I think people who don’t give moral consideration to just-conceived embryos are terribly, dangerously mistaken, I can at least see the philosophical underpinnings of their belief, and understand how they could have reached that place in good faith. They think the absence of certain biological traits makes a moral difference.
You, however, said that you supported “for any reason at all” the deliberate killing of innocent people that do have those traits that are said to distinguish embryo from newborn. Sorry, that’s not a stance good people can take. It’s an evil that I refuse to let you live down, because it needs to be driven outside the bounds of political and social respectability, every bit as much as racial and religious bigotry.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 01, 2010 at 2244 hrs
your act - and that’s what it is, an act - is getting stale and transparent. The jig’s up, Scott, and whether or not you want to turn your reputation around is up to you.
And I’m the one here who’s arrogant
I bring up the 12-week incident to you so often because it’s honestly one of the sickest, most evil things I’ve ever seen written in the WI blogosphere.
And I’ve told you—repeatedly—that I threw it out there as an example; that I was willing to hear a counterargument; that I was merely trying to illustrate the point that fetal development happens over time and thus legal/moral consideration should be given in roughly corresponding stages as well. But you’re not having it. You seized upon 12 weeks and an abomination and won’t hear anything else. But fine. It’s an outrage that’s useful in avoiding actually having to respond intelligently to my criticisms of the pro-life movement. I get that.
people who don’t give moral consideration to just-conceived embryos are terribly, dangerously mistaken, I can at least see the philosophical underpinnings of their belief, and understand how they could have reached that place in good faith. They think the absence of certain biological traits makes a moral difference.
You’re describing me to a T, pal. Where’s the “understanding” you owe me for my “good faith”?
Mostly I just find your way of arguing to be extraordinarily useful in diagramming just how arrogant, dishonest, hypocritical, and illogical leftist argumentation can be.
I can only chuckle. In a recent post over at my place, there was a lively and civil discussion happening until you arrived. The very first things you had to say were personal insults, Calvin. The very first. Things. You said. Were personal insults. Unprovoked and uncalled for. And I didn’t reciprocate, either. I treated you with more civility than you deserved. So don’t lecture me about how to have an argument. When I need advice in that department I’ll be sure to call up someone—anyone—who isn’t you.
Good DAY sir.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 2258 hrs
In other words, you’re once again going to dodge the monstrousness of your position. But hey, it’s your soul, not mine. Do what you want. And you accusing someone else of avoiding arguments is the quintessential case of projection (one more of those handy illustrations of left-wing rhetorical tactics I was talking about - thanks!). As you know full well, on multiple occasions I’ve taken your attempts to do just that and responded to them as if they were sincere arguments - which they weren’t.
“I treated you with more civility than you deserved. So don’t lecture me about how to have an argument. When I need advice in that department I’ll be sure to call up someone—anyone—who isn’t you.”
More disingenuousness. Among the things I knocked you for, decorum wasn’t one of them. Go back and read ‘em. I’ve gone through numerous debates with you in which I restrained myself for the sake of a productive argument. And almost without fail, you prove such respect undeserved. Accordingly, it’s entirely appropriate to skip the pretense and false pleasantries and speak frankly about things.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 01, 2010 at 2326 hrs
I said GOOD DAY!
(C’mon you knew I had to.)
Whatever man. I’m ready to let bygones be bygones as soon as you are. You want to tell me something about the magical 12 weeks? Cool. Let me tell you something about the non-personhood of a zygote. We’ll have a talk.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 2354 hrs
our vehement hatred of me
Welcome to the club, Calvin…. the club of people Scott has accused of hating him because we disagree with his ideas. It’s a big group. I used to go to the meetings, but it’s too crowded.
Oddly, it’s Scott who is the one to grace other commenters with his personal dislike. Maybe it’s protectionism, as Owen said…. or maybe it just projection.
A piece of advice, Scott. It’s not good to wear your opinions on your sleeve so close to your emotions. Lots of people are not going to agree with the stuff you advocate… if that hurts your feeling so much, then perhaps you leave the more inflammatory stuff on your own blog where it won’t be questioned too extensively.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 0714 hrs
You want to tell me something about the magical 12 weeks?
“Magical”? As if you don’t already know why what you said is so monstrous? As if you don’t already know how your endorsement of 12-week abortions blatantly violated your own purported standards of what makes early abortions okay? Despite the fact that every time you’ve been asked to defend it on the merits before, you dodged and ignored it?
I wonder if you even realize that you’ve demonstrated yet again how my every word about your propagandizing ways is dead on.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 0906 hrs
You know, it’s as if I’d repeatedly said, no! 12 weeks is my iron-clad limit! I will not hear any further argument on the subject! FU if you think maybe 11 or 10 weeks is more appropriate, you misogynist woman-hater!
blatantly violated your own purported standards
If it does, I’m open to reconsider it. As I’ve said to you many, many times now: I threw it out there as an example, largely because you and others were badgering me for numbers.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 0922 hrs
Okay then: how is it okay to kill a human being when that human being has all of the following: a fully-formed brain, a heartbeat, and the capacity to feel pain?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 0941 hrs
You sure you want to start this up 63 comments in on this totally unrelated post?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 0947 hrs
You’re the one who asked for an explanation of what the big deal was with the 12-week mark (despite the fact that you already know what the big deal is).
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 0951 hrs
@ Calvin and scott: Maybe this argument should be taken to a different forum. Back to topic?: It was just a freakin’ “photo opp” (Post #40)!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 0956 hrs
What i’m saying. Although it’s not too far off, as one of the “villains” in the photo is from planned parenthood.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 0958 hrs
My comment was directed primarily to Calvin, but Jeez Louise, this all goes back to a “FVCKING picture”!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1002 hrs
Well hell, in that one picture you have the unholy trifecta: the Democratic governor who’s office is up for election this year, a union leader and—ye gods!—someone from planned parenthood. It’s like chum in shark-infested waters.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1005 hrs
Yeah, in other words: “PROOF”!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1009 hrs
Laker,
In a thread about the propriety of being photographed with a Planned Parenthood president it’s fully germane to explore the general subject of Planned Parenthood’s pet issue, as people were already doing before I showed up. And Scott’s credibility on the subject of abortion is just as germane whenever he shows up.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 1024 hrs
No Calvin, you are hiding behind the pretense of a so called ?Planned Parenthood Photograph? to justify your continued argument with scott. Just admit to what you?re doing and move on?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1034 hrs
So you can’t possibly fathom how somebody might make the jump from Planned Parenthood to abortion, even when there were 42 comments in which abortion was already being debated before I said a word, including Scott on his own, with no provocation from me, repeating precisely the propaganda I condemn him for: “But in my book even pro-lifers who make exception for rape or incest cannot see abortion as literal murder.” (#38) Riiiiiiight.....
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 1056 hrs
I don’t think it’s off topic so much as just a little late to get into what is surely going to add another 100 comments to this thread.
Incidentally, though: I was right when I observed that “pro-lifers who make exception for rape or incest cannot see abortion as literal murder.”
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1100 hrs
In a thread about the propriety of being photographed with a Planned Parenthood president it?s fully germane to explore the general subject of Planned Parenthood?s pet issue, as people were already doing before I showed up. And Scott?s credibility on the subject of abortion is just as germane whenever he shows up.
Calvin: As I far back as I CARE TO READ, the first mention was made at post# 37.
Again, my point is that YOU have a personal agenda with scott. Why not take it to his blog?
Is it because you don’t feel it’s not read enough? Not enough commentors in your favor? All I?m saying is try not to bring your personal beefs with scott and make this an abortion issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1113 hrs
Actually, Scott, I gave several solid reasons not to believe that canard. If you had compelling rebuttals to them, you would have made them.
Laker, I don’t care how far back you care to read, I care about what’s true. And I’m not impressed by your whining about this.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 02, 2010 at 1140 hrs
If you had compelling rebuttals to them, you would have made them.
I missed them, sorry. The only thing I recall is SoL blathering on about Catholics and risk to a woman’s life—a peripheral issue at best. What would you like me to consider?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1144 hrs
Wow. If calling you out on your “pettiness” is YOUR definition of whining, then I guess I fit the bill. At least I am man enought to admit my part.
Grow a pair!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1212 hrs
LSTW…I’ll make it easy for you: you’re an idiot.
Wait, I thought liberals were supposed to throw around insults. Oh wait…..
Way to avoid the question coward.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1308 hrs
We have lost 2 this year. Several last year as well. Obviously my job requires a greater degree of dedication to duty and the employees are naturally held to a higher standard… but when was the last time you had someone fired at your work place for getting a second DUI,
Is this an example of what you’re talking about?
MILWAUKEE - 43-year-old Robert Johnson is on paid suspension while he sits in jail. The father of five children is charged with finding a 15-year-old online and having sex with her many times.
Johnson plead not guilty Wednesday and waived his preliminary hearing.
TODAY’S TMJ4 obtained Johnson’s employee file from the Milwaukee Fire Department. It shows a history of rules violations.
Johnson’s been a firefighter for a decade and has been suspended at least three times.
He lied last year about being home sick, according to the records. In fact, police arrested Johnson after a physical fight with his girlfriend and he was in jail that day.
“Before we left my residence, I was allowed to make one phone call,” Johnson wrote in an e-mail to Deputy Chief Gary Miller. “So I called the sick hot line.”
And the union isn’t commenting on this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 2011 hrs
Unions exist to deal with the wages and working conditions of the members. Why would a union comment on the activities of their members outside of the place of employment?
Did you have some point to make, Pat?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 2332 hrs
Did you have some point to make, Pat?
Obviously my job requires a greater degree of dedication to duty and the employees are naturally held to a higher standard
Obviously not that high of a standard.Robert Johnson is on paid suspension while he sits in jail. The father of five children is charged with finding a 15-year-old online and having sex with her many times.
Johnson’s been a firefighter for a decade and has been suspended at least three times.
He lied last year about being home sick, according to the records. In fact, police arrested Johnson after a physical fight with his girlfriend and he was in jail that day.
I’m sure the union has something to do with him not being fired.The only thing good about public employee unions are that they protect the employees from accountability with the Tax Payers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0616 hrs
Obviously not that high of a standard.
The fact that someone fails to meet up to expectations says more about the individual than the expectations.
In most jobs, you call in sick, and that’s it. No one asks, no one checks. Where I work, you get a visit at home to ensure you are there… in fact, you are REQUIRED to remain at home. If you leave for medical reasons you must call to log the time you leave, the reason, and when you return. Fail to do so, and you are severely punished. Do so multiple times, and you are fired. Is that how your job is Pat? Well?
Would you be suspended from work without pay and be barred from overtime because you were 5 minutes late two times? Well?
I’m sure the union has something to do with him not being fired.
That’s because you, Pat, are a dipstick. We have very clear disciplinary procedures and penalties. The union makes sure they are applied fairly, but punishments for things that you likely do everyday are frequently meted out.
The only thing good about public employee unions are that they protect the employees from accountability with the Tax Payers.
You may make all the condescending and maliciously derogatory remarks about firefighters that you like… fact is though that you are wrong… mostly because of what I see as a deeply flawed character on your part. I’ll take the company of the firefighters that you hold in such low regard any day over the company of liberal imbeciles such as yourself.
Please do make sure to be very public with your opinions though… tell your friends and neighbors how you feel… in fact, make sure to tell the folks who work at your local firehouse… I’m sure they’ll be quite polite in listening to your complaints, and they’ll have enough integrity to ignore your dark little soul when they come to help you some day in the future.
Have a lovely day, Pat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1102 hrs
Is ASOL a firefighter? If so, that explains a lot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1206 hrs
That’s because you, Pat, are a dipstick.
Great rebuttal. It’s about what I would expect from a union protected faux conservative living off the tax payer.
You may make all the condescending and maliciously derogatory remarks about firefighters that you like
Like making up things?? What maliciously derogatory remarks about firefighters did I make up?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1209 hrs
Great rebuttal. It’s about what I would expect from a union protected faux conservative living off the tax payer.
Guess the rest of it was too tough a read for you Pat. Sorry, I’ll try to write more slowly for you. I really expected nothing less from an angry liberal like you. It’s tough when your ideas fail all around you. The emotions that led you to them never really fills the gaps. Petty fiction is pretty much the norm in that case (you can curse at me now, if you need to…it’s ok). I also notice you never told me how high the standards were at your place of employment… I did ask several direct questions… did you miss them? You ARE working, right? Well then… what about your standards?
So, by all means, do continue your pontifications… tell us all more about your local fire department… perhaps have a go at the cops too. That’s always fun to watch. You must have a great deal of factual knowledge in that arena…. cmon, tell us more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1245 hrs
I really expected nothing less from an angry liberal like you. It’s tough when your ideas fail all around you. The emotions that led you to them never really fills the gaps. Petty fiction is pretty much the norm in that case (you can curse at me now, if you need to…it’s ok). I also notice you never told me how high the standards were at your place of employment… I did ask several direct questions… did you miss them? You ARE working, right? Well then… what about your standards?
Gee, a little sensitive aren’t we. What I would expect from a public union employee. I never spoke of any standards at my workplace, you did. And I can see by what you’ve said, the bar is set pretty high. Got a GED, get a job as a firefighter. But I see you still are unable to specify any falsehoods I spoke of.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1318 hrs
Got a GED, get a job
as a firefighter.Lol. Well, you try that, Pat. I’ll even drive you down to start your application process so that you don’t have to pay for a bus ride.
I’ll assume (just for fun in the same factual vacuum that you like to use) that your non-answer to my questions means that you don’t have a job at all. Ok, that would certainly fit into place. By your standards, that really means we have nothing further to discuss… as you are not a taxpayer at all, but a tax user.
For a troll, you are certainly quite entertaining.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1330 hrs
I know 2 firefighters with only GED’s, but it’s more fun to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1335 hrs
I know 2 firefighters with only GED’s, but it’s more fun to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Add one to your string of worthwhile comments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1352 hrs
Add one to your string of worthwhile comments.
And in the name of one-up-manship…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1407 hrs
For a troll, you are certainly quite entertaining.
I see you still are unable to specify any falsehoods I spoke of.
Oh, I don’t work for the tax payers, I work in private industry, so I don’t have to answer your questions about my job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1428 hrs
Oh, I don’t work for the tax payers, I work in private industry, so I don’t have to answer your questions about my job.
Well, I find it difficult to believe that you are gainfully employed. Perhaps you work for your parents business? Well, in any case, I see that you are happily using your employers time to offer your insightful commentary. Or do you work nights? Plastics injection perhaps? Citgo cashier?
No matter, clearly there are no useful answers forth-coming. You’d better get back to work, that cash register isn’t going to operate itself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1445 hrs
I respect all municiple workers the same be it a fireman, or a sanitation worker. They all do outstanding jobs. And they get great benifits compliments of the tax payers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1458 hrs
I respect all municiple workers the same be it a fireman, or a sanitation worker.
If you say so, Pat… if you say so. btw, they are called firefighters…. as I’m sure any female member of that profession would happily tell you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1632 hrs
Your PC attitudes are ruining this country!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 1915 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 10:00 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).