Another Example Of Union Tactics?

Union Thugs Burn House of Worship


View attachment 1167

January 8, 2013​

(PHILLY.COM) To afford Philadelphia's first new Quaker meetinghouse in 80 years, the Chestnut Hill Friends felt their only option was to employ a nonunion contractor.​

​

And now they are paying the price.​

​

​

Four days before Christmas, the Friends' world was rocked by the sort of violence they have devoted their lives to stamping out.​

​

​

Vandals with an acetylene torch crept onto the project's muddy construction site in the middle of the night. Working out of view in the meetinghouse's freshly cemented basement, they sliced off dozens of bolts securing the bare steel columns and set fire to the building crane, causing $500,000 in damage.​

​

​

Police detectives deemed the attack arson because of a series of confrontational visits from union officials days before the incident. They say the torch could only have been operated by a trained professional, and believe it was almost certainly the work of disgruntled union members. The city has assigned extra investigators to the case and is working with federal forensic experts to track down the vandals, said Michael Resnick, the city's public safety commissioner.​

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/unions/2013/01/08/union-thugs-burn-house-worship#ixzz2HRB38Voq​

 

Stop the violent rhetoric, union thugs... PLEASE!

View attachment 1169

 

Oh! But Teddy has already said that violence is acceptable - at least for his party. Now, if it were the Tea Party, they had better not sneeze loudly around Teddy or he will accuse them of excessive violence.

 

Further proves the level of hypocrisy that exists on the left.

 

I sure hope these guys don't have guns!

 

Their weapons of choice in the two articles I've referenced are fire and some sort of cutting instrument (to facilitate the castration). I'll agree that these guys shouldn't have guns. Violent, mentally ill people should never have guns.

 

I hope that the police catch whoever is responsible for the vandalism. Also, I agree that it looks suspiciously like somebody involved with the excluded unions (steelworkers in particular) was responsible.

I'm mildly amused to find that Fox News considers construction cranes to be houses of worship, but they've always had an imaginative approach to the truth.

 

Yes, it certainly looks that way. But, it's more than vandalism. It's arson which is a felony.

Oh, I'm not too sure I agree with you. Would you consider an attack on the construction scaffolding around the Supreme Court be an attack on the building? Would you consider it an attack on Obama's limousine if someone set ablaze the lift upon which it rested while getting an oil change? At the construction site of a mosque if someone spray-painted "Jew" on the bulldozer would you consider it an attack on the bulldozer or an attack on the religion?

 

And here is Right-wingnut paraniod Alex Jones threatening all-out (oddly enough another fight with the British rather than a civil war) war over guns. But this type of violent rhetoric is OK with you guys for some reason because he is a Rightie.

Jones launches into a two-and-a-half-minute tirade during which he almost never pauses for breath, getting more frenzied and manic, wildly gesticulating as he tries to argue his case for unlimited gun access, featuring the roar:

“1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms! Doesn’t matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street, begging for them to have their guns taken. We will not relinquish them! Do you understand?!”​

 

So you have a problem with "violent RHETORIC" (I am not exactly sure how violent rhetoric can really be) from the right, but somehow you can support riots, violence, and arson in support of your side. If that does not personify hypocrisy, I have no idea what ever would.

 

Well he did offer Morgan a fight there and then on the chat show LOL

Ps please dont support the effort to have Piers Morgan deported WE DONT WANT HIM BACK LOL

 

Agreed.

Heh, the shotgun approach to rhetoric, eh? The plain fact is that the house of worship was not burned. Fox News says that it was, which is a lie, not to put too fine a point on it. So you throw out a scattering of hypothetical cases to try to justify the lie. Fine, let's look at them:

"Would you consider an attack on the construction scaffolding around the Supreme Court be an attack on the building?"

No: Even if the damage to the scaffolding happened to cause damage to the building, scaffolding ≠ building.

"Would you consider it an attack on Obama's limousine if someone set ablaze the lift upon which it rested while getting an oil change?"

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to include the name of the President of the United States in your example; it doesn't add anything, and seems like a feeble attempt to elicit an emotional reaction. This example is not analogous. If the meeting house had been burned with the construction crane inside it, and Fox News had made a headline saying "Union Thugs Burn Construction Crane," then you would be correct to use burning of a lift which was holding a car as an analogy. My opinion: Failure, on more than one level.

"At the construction site of a mosque if someone spray-painted "Jew" on the bulldozer would you consider it an attack on the bulldozer or an attack on the religion?"

Jews don't worship in mosques, they worship in a synagogue, shul, or temple, so I would consider the vandal an ignorant pissant. Ignoring that: As far as I know, nobody is saying that this was an "anti-Quaker" act per se, so again, not a very apt example. Ignoring that: Vandalism to a bulldozer is not vandalism to the mosque, so if Fox News created a headline: "Union Thugs Vandalize Mosque" it would be just as much of a lie as the one we're discussing. So this example is again a failure. However, I will stipulate that spray-painting a name on a bulldozer could be construed as some sort of "attack on the religion." Since the example does not address the situation being discussed, I don't think this is a valid defense of Fox News's lie.

 

To me, Fox seems to have jumped to a conclusion without any proof. Surely, an investigation needs to be conducted just like in the Trayvon Martin case but Fox has already reached it's conclusion. There is no proof whatsoever in this article that any union member had anything to do with this crime. But because Fox has erroneously implicated "unions" the Righties here don't really need proof. They are just happy slam unions or more accurately the workers of this country for any reason period. No story here...Move along folks.

 

If you would go back and reread that entire thread about Trayvon, you might come to a different conclusion. It was Coin, Fox and myself who were saying that they was no proof of anything while you and clueless were insisting that George was guilty of murder without any proof (and guilty of "violating a lawful order" despite there being no such order given).

 

Little Joe, if you'll also notice, I titled this thread with a "question mark". The police are investigating the incident and believe it was "almost certainly the work of disgruntled union members". Now, whether or not that's true remains to be seen. I certainly have no proof that it was and you have no proof that it wasn't. But, the police believe it was and that's where the investigation appears to be headed.

However, my personal take on the matter is that union thugs are most assuredly capable of committing the act and, generally speaking based upon violent rhetoric and behavior from union thugs, I wouldn't put it past them. I'm not accusing them of committing the act, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they did. For all we know it may actually have been some Occupy Whatever criminals.

 

If you'll notice, the title of Fox's article didn't use a question mark. Nor has your question mark persuaded any Righties from assuming that it was anyone but a "union thug". Alex Jones is talking all out war against anyone that tries to take his guns. I'll take some burned scaffolding over that any time.

 

Yes, yes, yes we are all aware of your tendency toward violence. Enough already! FOX didn't need to use a question mark. They're reporting the incident and part of it was that the police believe it was "almost certainly the work of disgruntled union members".

On your side note concerning Alex Jones, I don't think he's as much against anyone who wants to take away his guns as much as he's against anyone who wants to take away his right to bear arms (do you see the difference?). If it were simply a matter of a law or a policy that grants citizens the privilege to carry a gun, I could see where that privilege could be taken away very easily. But, the right to bear arms isn't our privilege, it's our RIGHT. I, for one, will fight for my rights. Will you?

 

Any thug is capable of violence be they left or right or even apolitical

 

My new favorite definition of oblivious.

obliv·i·ous
adjective \ə-ˈbli-vē-əs\
Definition of OBLIVIOUS

1: lacking remembrance, memory, or mindful attention
2: lacking active conscious knowledge or awareness —usually used with of or to
3: CoinOKC
— obliv·i·ous·ly adverb
— obliv·i·ous·ness noun

 

My new favorite definition of asshat.

asshat |ˈashat|

noun vulgar slang
1: a stupid person.
2: JoeNation