WTF?

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Total B.S. From my reading the court is saying it is O.K. to commit violence fire guns and damage property as long it is in pursuit of Union aims. Total B.S.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Total B.S. From my reading the court is saying it is O.K. to commit violence fire guns and damage property as long it is in pursuit of Union aims. Total B.S.

I have a friend who is a veteran of the union wars in Kenosha, WI...he was on the teacher's negotion panel when the Kenosha school district was shut down for a whole year...no school

He had the balls to call the Superintendent of Schools a "Stupid Corksucker" during the negotiations, then was surprised when school finally resumed and he had been inexplicably transferred to the worst school in the district.

He always said, if the union wanted to get the board's attention during negotiations, burning down a few school buildings ought to do the job.

Maybe he knew more than he was 'fessin' up, maybe?

Yeah, but even though they can't prosecute the unions, individual members can still be held responsible....says so right in the Wiki article, so the individuals responsible for this destructive behavior could be held accountable...if law enforcement would dedicate the effort to the task, that is.....and the police out on the streets were probably union members, too, so what were the chances, right???

Not quite sure why the unions could not be cited for inciting a riot or some other trumped up charge....they should not have been held blameless, IMHO.

Lots of laws in effect that don't make much sense these days....many put on the books half a century ago, maybe a century ago, with no intention of attracting any enforcement, just there.

Surprised the violence wasn't held defensible b/c it was a form of free speech....thank goodness it didn't go there!

Cheers, Doug!!
 
Back
Top