Anybody else remember this or heard of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ted_States_v._Enmons
It basically states that a union involved in violent acts is immune from prosecution as long as their acts are in pursuit of a "legitimate" union objective.

I guess everyone agrees with the unions having this immunity then?

I wasn't aware of this, but it merely confirms that insanity is running rampant in the streets.

It is not immunity. That ruling just states that those are criminal acts are not extortion so they do not violate the Anti-Racketeering Act. The unions and their members are still on the hook for any and all state criminal and civil penalties.

It is similar to murder. Murder is not covered by federal law but that does not mean it is legal. Anyone that commits murder will be tried in a state court.

.

common ordinary murder yes
BUT if a federal official is killed then the feds can step in

and yes we do know aggravate-a-door hates workers
and supports anything that limits their rights

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

I'm for limiting any rights that trample the rights of others.

quote Originally posted by ray b: common ordinary murder yes BUT if a federal official is killed then the feds can step in and yes we do know aggravate-a-door hates workers and supports anything that limits their rights

But if aggravate-a-door wasn't Pennocks most efficient Info-Troll ever, there wouldn't be an O/T section to speak of.
What do ya do?

quote Originally posted by ray b: common ordinary murder yes BUT if a federal official is killed then the feds can step in and yes we do know aggravate-a-door hates workers and supports anything that limits their rights

At what point do you limit workers rights so they don't trample on employers rights?

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I'm for limiting any rights that trample the rights of others.

I'm fairly certain that is the definition of morality, isn't it, a1?

Let's form a Union and then go after Labor Unions and then we can legitimately kick their lazy drunk and drugged up butts.

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: At what point do you limit workers rights so they don't trample on employers rights?

employers aka owners have lots of rights and protections
in fact the whole system protects them
I have never heard of cops or the army shooting the owners or busting their heads

quote Originally posted by ray b: employers aka owners have lots of rights and protections in fact the whole system protects them I have never heard of cops or the army shooting the owners or busting their heads

If you have any stocks or mutual funds or any retirement fund, you are the owner, which is basically more than half of the people in the United States are the owners.

Your precious government Social Security was spent on the Vietnam War.

Irony?

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I'm for limiting any rights that trample the rights of others.

every right tramples the right of someone else, somewhere. This is survival of the fittest, with a slight veneer of civility glued on. Live with it.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: employers aka owners have lots of rights and protections in fact the whole system protects them I have never heard of cops or the army shooting the owners or busting their heads

So union thugs shooting and cracking heads is ok?

Sorry Ray on this one your logic is running into a fail.. When things go bad owners just shut things down (no shootings or rounding up of workers) Unions start marching and ranting and assaualting those trying to work.
No i'm not speaking from a talking point.. I've been through this a few times. One of the reasons I'll never join a union again

quote Originally posted by the rabid one employers aka owners have lots of rights and protections in fact the whole system protects them

I guess you never heard or read about an employee getting hurt, harassed, or discrimnated on the job. Some of the lawsuits they bring can bankrupt a company. Owners don't usually get sued because they are considered a separate entity from the company, if it is incorporated.
Employers are supposed to provide a safe and non-hostile work environment. They have to comply with all sorts of regulations and agreements from OSHA, the EPA, state labor laws, and even unions to name a few.
If an employer tries to cheat, hurt, harass, or discriminate against an employee they will be in for a world of hurt when this is reported to the proper authorities. The system is meant to protect the employees. An owner only has his attorney to protect him. In most states you can't even be fired unless it is for cause and it has to be properly documented.
The article I linked to stated:

quote The case involved a labor strike in which union members fired rifles at three utility company transformers, drained the oil from another, and blew up an entire company substation. The labor union in question was seeking a higher-pay contract and other benefits from their employer, the Gulf States Utilities Company. The Court decided that the union involved was immune from prosecution because their violent acts were in pursuit of a legitimate union objective.

Where is the protection for the owner of this property? Who pays for these damages? Why shouldn't these people be prosecuted for their criminal acts? What would have happened if the owners had decided to defend their property with deadly force?

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 06-12-2011).]

Lets go back to the days before we had those pesky union protection laws. Look up the Bisbee, Arizona deportation of 1917. Companies really knew how to deal with unions in the old days.

I can’t understand the animosity toward unions. The few that remain are relatively powerless. I can remember when large strikes by the Teamsters would tie up shipping on the coasts for months. That doesn’t happen anymore. The same in all industries, unions just don’t have the leverage they once did and of course we can all see that the country is much better off without them (sarcasm).

What is the percentage of the private workforce now in unions? Latest info I can find says it’s less than 7%. If public employees are included the number jumps to just under 12%. Why is this small minority singled out for being responsible for all the nations labor woes? I really have trouble understanding the venom and hatred directed at unions today.

quote Originally posted by spark1: Lets go back to the days before we had those pesky union protection laws. Look up the Bisbee, Arizona deportation of 1917. Companies really knew how to deal with unions in the old days. I can’t understand the animosity toward unions. The few that remain are relatively powerless. I can remember when large strikes by the Teamsters would tie up shipping on the coasts for months. That doesn’t happen anymore. The same in all industries, unions just don’t have the leverage they once did and of course we can all see that the country is much better off without them (sarcasm). What is the percentage of the private workforce now in unions? Latest info I can find says it’s less than 7%. If public employees are included the number jumps to just under 12%. Why is this small minority singled out for being responsible for all the nations labor woes? I really have trouble understanding the venom and hatred directed at unions today.

When the purple shirts buy the elections, I'd say that's a LOT of leverage and a LOT of power....

quote Originally posted by spark1: Lets go back to the days before we had those pesky union protection laws. Look up the Bisbee, Arizona deportation of 1917. Companies really knew how to deal with unions in the old days. I can’t understand the animosity toward unions. The few that remain are relatively powerless. I can remember when large strikes by the Teamsters would tie up shipping on the coasts for months. That doesn’t happen anymore. The same in all industries, unions just don’t have the leverage they once did and of course we can all see that the country is much better off without them (sarcasm). What is the percentage of the private workforce now in unions? Latest info I can find says it’s less than 7%. If public employees are included the number jumps to just under 12%. Why is this small minority singled out for being responsible for all the nations labor woes? I really have trouble understanding the venom and hatred directed at unions today.

Because Unions are not about productivity and performance. They are tied to only keeping a small relatively useless group of thugs in a loop of extortion. They basically live off the backs of the workers without doing anything for the workers any more.

Our economy has changed and so has the demand on knowledge workers, productivity and global competition. The union does nothing to promote change or to advance the knowledge and skills of the workforce. So they are basically useless. That is why the vast numbers of people working the private sector do not belong in a union and their pay and benefits are greater than that you can find in a union shop.

Unions therefore have gravitated to extorting government workers. Funny how those who venomously defend unions as some sort of grand great cause for the average worker to defend themselves from evil and extortionist capitalist. But where is these evil business people and evil capitalist in government?

Not a single union puke has ever explained why unions are needed in government jobs. Because in government there is no evil capitalist or evil business people or evil management to oppose. And government worker unions make up the bulk of union membership in the world.

Unions are therefore not for the "little guy", but about advancing power over people for themselves. That is why union leaders have business jets, own golf courses and country clubs, shiny BMW's and gated community houses without picking up a single tool or even getting their suits dirty or even picking up a pencil. It's no secret the unions are controlled by organized crime.

And union pukes still do not get why the vast population of Americans are against unions?

quote Originally posted by spark1: Lets go back to the days before we had those pesky union protection laws. Look up the Bisbee, Arizona deportation of 1917. Companies really knew how to deal with unions in the old days. I can’t understand the animosity toward unions. The few that remain are relatively powerless. I can remember when large strikes by the Teamsters would tie up shipping on the coasts for months. That doesn’t happen anymore. The same in all industries, unions just don’t have the leverage they once did and of course we can all see that the country is much better off without them (sarcasm). What is the percentage of the private workforce now in unions? Latest info I can find says it’s less than 7%. If public employees are included the number jumps to just under 12%. Why is this small minority singled out for being responsible for all the nations labor woes? I really have trouble understanding the venom and hatred directed at unions today.

People of a certain "us versus them, for us or against us" mentality need someone to hate and to blame all the world's woes on. Pretty basic human psychology, actually...

While concentrating on the ant, the elephant goes unnoticed:





How the middle class became the underclass

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 06-13-2011).]

The ANT
AND THE
GRASSHOPPER
This one is a little different .......
Two Different Versions .....
Two Different Morals

OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and
laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter,
so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:

Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house
and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC
show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with
a table filled with food
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is
allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah
with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green..'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome.

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright
has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant
and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has
gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper,
and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and,
having nothing left to pay his retroactive
taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow,
never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize and ramshackle, the once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest
of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY:


Be careful how you vote in 2012

my version of ants and grasshoppers

the story of the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER
once appon a time the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER's great grand dad
stold the land of the red ants, he used the goverment troops to kill them
saying the only good red ant was a dead red ant
then he built a plantation and inslaved black ants to do the work for him
and make his family rich
after his son took over the plantation a war freed the black ants
but the black ants were without anything for their years of work
and all they knew how to do was work on a plantation
so the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER's grand dad
"let" the black ants stay and work on the plantation
BUT he invented a system called sharecroping that was worse the the slavery
and he got richer and the black ants got very very little in a good year
and starved in the bad years
and the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER rigged the laws so the
black ants could not vote or even question his rules
so after a long time the black ants left the plantation
and the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER dad took over
subdivided the plantation and built track houses useing carpenter ants
to do all the work at low nonunion rates and got richer
then the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER himself inherited
all the money his great grand dad, grand dad, and dad made off the work of the ants
then the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER rigged the laws so he would not have to pay any taxes
but as somebody all ways pays sooner or later the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER
hoped the taxes he didnot pay would be paid by the ants childern

SO UNLESS YOU ARE A fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER
who wants others to do the work for you and pay your taxes too
DONOT VOTE FOR THEM

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

I agree with not voting for any fat lazy politicians, whatever their affiliations may be. There is one problem with your story though, it isn't contemporary while mine is. Also my story isn't more about political sides but is more about the concept of the "rich" as they are perceived by the "poor".

quote Originally posted by ray b: my version of ants and grasshoppers the story of the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER once appon a time the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER's great grand dad stold the land of the red ants, he used the goverment troops to kill them saying the only good red ant was a dead red ant then he built a plantation and inslaved black ants to do the work for him and make his family rich after his son took over the plantation a war freed the black ants but the black ants were without anything for their years of work and all they knew how to do was work on a plantation so the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER's grand dad "let" the black ants stay and work on the plantation BUT he invented a system called sharecroping that was worse the the slavery and he got richer and the black ants got very very little in a good year and starved in the bad years and the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER rigged the laws so the black ants could not vote or even question his rules so after a long time the black ants left the plantation and the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER dad took over subdivided the plantation and built track houses useing carpenter ants to do all the work at low nonunion rates and got richer then the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER himself inherited all the money his great grand dad, grand dad, and dad made off the work of the ants then the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER rigged the laws so he would not have to pay any taxes but as somebody all ways pays sooner or later the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER hoped the taxes he didnot pay would be paid by the ants childern SO UNLESS YOU ARE A fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER who wants others to do the work for you and pay your taxes too DONOT VOTE FOR THEM

At first I laughed, then I realized that that darn Republican Grasshopper wants me to work for crap instead of just giving it to me too!! NOW I HATE WHITEY er the grasshopper too.

I just want crap given to me!! I don't want to work, and I certainly don't want to suffer for anything, I think my ancestors were mistreated by the same system in Europe, and I therefore deserve crap loads of free stuff, please send it as soon as possible. I don't want all you have, just my fair share rayb, because as I recall, you are rich, and as you recall, I am not. Don't make me make a scene here.

Brad

no my version is a parity of real history based facts
mr a's is pure fantasy based on fear

quote Originally posted by ray b: my version of ants and grasshoppers the story of the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER once appon a time the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER's great grand dad stold the land of the red ants, he used the goverment troops to kill them saying the only good red ant was a dead red ant then he built a plantation and inslaved black ants to do the work for him and make his family rich after his son took over the plantation a war freed the black ants but the black ants were without anything for their years of work and all they knew how to do was work on a plantation so the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER's grand dad "let" the black ants stay and work on the plantation BUT he invented a system called sharecroping that was worse the the slavery and he got richer and the black ants got very very little in a good year and starved in the bad years and the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER rigged the laws so the black ants could not vote or even question his rules so after a long time the black ants left the plantation and the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER dad took over subdivided the plantation and built track houses useing carpenter ants to do all the work at low nonunion rates and got richer then the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER himself inherited all the money his great grand dad, grand dad, and dad made off the work of the ants then the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER rigged the laws so he would not have to pay any taxes but as somebody all ways pays sooner or later the fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER hoped the taxes he didnot pay would be paid by the ants childern SO UNLESS YOU ARE A fat lazy REPUBLICAN GRASSHOPPER who wants others to do the work for you and pay your taxes too DONOT VOTE FOR THEM

Your post is full of so many historical lies.

1. The Republican party didn't even exist when during the early years of the country as Native Americans or "savages" were driven from their land. One of the worst offenders was DEMOCRAT Andrew Jackson. Read about the Trail of Tears.

2. It was DEMOCRATS who bought and used slave labor. It was Republicans that fought the war to free the slaves from the DEMOCRATS.

3. It was DEMOCRATS that used sharecropping to keep former slaves on the plantations.

4. It was DEMOCRATS that enacted Jim Crow laws to take rights away from blacks.

Some things you didn't mention:

It was DEMOCRATS that enforced Separate but Equal.

It was DEMOCRATS that founded the KKK.

It was DEMOCRATS that predominately voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.

.

But aren't most of the old "Dixie Democrats" now Republicans?

quote Originally posted by spark1: But aren't most of the old "Dixie Democrats" now Republicans?

No. Most of them are now dead. The Dixiecrats dissolved in 1948.

Immediately after they dissolved, they went back to being Democrats. Later many of them switched to Republicans but they had to give up their segregationist platform.

.

Republicans: Dilemma in Dixie

quote Though the Republican Party's Southern renaissance started in the '50s, G.O.P. leaders are unhappily aware that its gains in 1964 were achieved largely with the help of defecting white Democrats incensed at the Administration's support of civil rights. Nor were Republican officials made any happier last week by a penetrating analysis of its dilemma in Dixie prepared by two liberal groups, the nationally organized Republicans for Progress and the Yale-based Republican Advance. Their report, a product of a state-by-state survey, warned that G.O.P. organizations in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina are "lily-white," and described party support for segregationist candidates as "sheer madness."

Dixiecrats are now Dixiecans

edit: Noticed the article date was 1966 but many Democrats did switch to the Republican party because they opposed the Civil Rights Act.

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 06-15-2011).]

quote Originally posted by spark1: Republicans: Dilemma in Dixie Dixiecrats are now Dixiecans

1964 was 57 years ago. They are dead or in a nursing home.

.

The RNC Chairman disagrees with you:

Michael Steele Acknowledges GOP Had “Southern Strategy” For Decades

quote A lot of people are pointing to a new set of remarks Michael Steele made about the Republican Party and race, in which Steele acknowledged that the GOP hasn’t given African Americans a reason to support the party. But I think folks are missing the real news in what Steele said. The RNC chairman also appeared to acknowledge that the GOP has had a race-based “southern strategy” for four decades, which is decidedly not a historical interpretation many Republicans agree with.

Four decades of accomodating disaffected Southern Democrats.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Your post is full of so many historical lies. 1. The Republican party didn't even exist when during the early years of the country as Native Americans or "savages" were driven from their land. One of the worst offenders was DEMOCRAT Andrew Jackson. Read about the Trail of Tears. 2. It was DEMOCRATS who bought and used slave labor. It was Republicans that fought the war to free the slaves from the DEMOCRATS. 3. It was DEMOCRATS that used sharecropping to keep former slaves on the plantations. 4. It was DEMOCRATS that enacted Jim Crow laws to take rights away from blacks. Some things you didn't mention: It was DEMOCRATS that enforced Separate but Equal. It was DEMOCRATS that founded the KKK. It was DEMOCRATS that predominately voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. .

I never said the great grand dad was a republican
nor the grand dad or the fat republican's dad

the only one id'ed as a republican is the fat grasshopper himself only
NOT THE DAD OR GRAND DAD OR GREAT GRAND DAD

and yes the conservatives did do all that
the same conservatives who quit the democrats
and in the last few years became republicans in mass

the result is a republican party that regressed and betrayed the values of Lincoln
and a democratic party that has progressed and rejected the racists to the GOP

SO NO LIE JUST POOR READING COMPREHENSION BY YOU

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 06-15-2011).]

quote Originally posted by spark1: The RNC Chairman disagrees with you: Michael Steele Acknowledges GOP Had “Southern Strategy” For Decades Four decades of accomodating disaffected Southern Democrats.

You are making unrelated associations to make your argument. Show me where in the last 40 years any Republican ran on a segregationist platform. Also, using simple math, the youngest a Dixiecrat could be in 1948 is 21, the legal age to vote. Such a voter today would be 84. Show me any Dixiecrat still in office today.

You point to shadowy accusations of racism but have nothing so far that can stand the light of scrutiny. I posted actual historical FACTS about the ties the Democrat party has to slavery, racism, and segregation.

If you want to argue history, then the Democrats lose hands down. If you want to argue today's issues, then you will still lose. The Democrats are the party of soft racism and have been soft racists for fifty years.


.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: You are making unrelated associations to make your argument. Show me where in the last 40 years any Republican ran on a segregationist platform. Also, using simple math, the youngest a Dixiecrat could be in 1948 is 21, the legal age to vote. Such a voter today would be 84. Show me any Dixiecrat still in office today. You point to shadowy accusations of racism but have nothing so far that can stand the light of scrutiny. I posted actual historical FACTS about the ties the Democrat party has to slavery, racism, and segregation. If you want to argue history, then the Democrats lose hands down. If you want to argue today's issues, then you will still lose. The Democrats are the party of soft racism and have been soft racists for fifty years. .

Nixon is credited with starting the Republican “Southern Strategy” in 1968 but it started earlier, around 1950 with “States Rights”. Increasingly southern Democrats found the Roosevelt had changed their party to one in which they no longer felt comfortable. It wasn’t just the racial issue that caused the rift, it was also a conservative/liberal split.

Nixon was able to capitalize on this since blacks seldom voted for Republicans anyhow so their loss to the party was not a big deal. Of course there was no overt racism plank in the Republican Party platform. But “States Rights” served as a code word well understood for it’s meaning at the time. More recently “Values” has been used..

Maybe things are changing. From 2003 to 2010, there were no black Republican members in the House of Representatives. Now there are two.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Oh really. So who is this mythical Republican that you are talking about? None of my ancestors owned slaves. Can you say the same? Also, holding someone responsible for what their ancestor did is one of the foundations of racism. You are a good example of today's soft racist Democrats.

mythical is correct as there are no republican grasshoppers
while some republicans act like insects no insects are in political partys
and the story while based on history is a fable made up by me

I donot know if the family owned a slave in the 1600's or 1700's
I did find a birth before the 1640's in R I so we were here then

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Since this is just in your fantasy world and has no baring on actual history, then continue fantasizing all you want.

quote Originally posted by ray b: mythical is correct as there are no republican grasshoppers while some republicans act like insects no insects are in political partys and the story while based on history is a fable made up by me I donot know if the family owned a slave in the 1600's or 1700's I did find a birth before the 1640's in R I so we were here then

.

------------------
The bread crumbs eventually end somewhere.