See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Obama’s Rationed Health Care Plan for America: A Picture Is Worth 1,000 Words « Frugal Café Blog Zone
2. Nightmare: Heritage Foundation Exposes Universal Health Care Myths & Destruction of Free Market « Frugal Café Blog Zone
3. The Hell of Obama’s Proposed Healthcare System for America « Frugal Café Blog Zone
4. SEIU Remarkably Straight Forward in Being Thugs - Cultural Gadfly
5. Barack’s Economic Plan – the people giveth, and the government taketh away… « Jim Blazsik
6. Budget Bully: “It’s Time To Stand Up To The Union Bullies” | Right Voices
7. Obama’s AMA Comment Deleted by ‘Times’, Press Sec. Gibbs Can’t Name One Country Where Single-Payer Health Care System Works (video) — Obama to AMA: “There Are Countries Where a Single-payer System Works Pretty Well̶
8. Thursday, June 18, 2009: Daily Handpicked Headlines :: Daily Uprising
9. A “Must Read” » American Thinker: “Back to ACORN General Hospital” | Obama’s Single-Payer Health Care Nightmare « Frugal Café Blog Zone
10. Bad News: Sen. Feingold Admits What We’ve Suspected All Along: Obama’s “Public” Health Care Plan Meant to Ultimately Push Americans to Single-Payer Health Care « Frugal Café Blog Zone
11. Suspicious: WH Says “Obama’s Rhetoric Shouldn’t Be Taken Literally” Concerning Promise That Americans Can Keep Their Private Health Insurance « Frugal Café Blog Zone
12. SEIU: Union Bullying :: Daily Uprising
13. Ronald Reagan’s Clarity… “The Gipper” Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine « Frugal Café Blog Zone
14. Rush Limbaugh: Would ObamaCare Discriminate? Two Callers Respond on Single-Payer Health Care « Frugal Café Blog Zone
15. Rush Limbaugh: Would ObamaCare Discriminate? Two Callers Respond on Single-Payer Health Care « Frugal Café Blog Zone
16. Obama, Stop Rushing into Yet Another Government Takeover with Health Care | RNC TV Ad Runs Challenge Health Bill « Frugal Café Blog Zone
17. Prez Says Electronic Medical Records More Accurate, Will Save Americans Billions — Not True « Frugal Café Blog Zone
18. Journalist Doing His Job: Jake Tapper Challenges Obama on Socialized Health Care (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
19. Canada’s Decrepit, Expensive Single-Payer Health Care System: Steven Crowder Investigates, Guerrilla-Style (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
20. Billions, Trillions, and More: CBO Releases Appalling Dollar Amount for Crappy ObamaCare « Frugal Café Blog Zone
21. Michelle Malkin » Enter the unions

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #101
   On June 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, Misscheryl said:

   No. She’s simply trying to get more of OUR tax money for her fellow extortionists, at a time when California is teetering on bankruptcy

   No, that’s why she’s doing it, it isn’t what she is doing… She wants more money and she what she is doing is using this tactic “I voted you in, I’ll vote you out” if you don’t give me what I want. I see it as a tatic to get what she wants. We all agree, we just view the ‘whole’ picture differently.

2. #102
   On June 18th, 2009 at 5:29 pm, Misscheryl said:

   correction: No, that’s why she’s doing it, it isn’t what she is doing… She wants more money and she what she is doing is using this tactic “I voted you in, I’ll vote you out” if you don’t give me what I want. I see it as a tatic to get what she wants. We all agree, we just view the ‘whole’ picture differently.

3. #103
   On June 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pm, Ragspierre said:

   I think there is a great question as to whether ANY union representation of civil service workers is good public policy.

   By definition, they enjoy civil service protections. They are thus already protected from many of the issues that the rest of us “working people” have to deal with, and enjoy many benefits that people in the public sector do not.

   Having people who are joined at the hip with government at various levels also striking or bargaining collectively with the government is, per force, a conflict of interest. It has led to the mess in California, one of those places where this conflict has greatest influence. It has led to municipal employees of NYC commonly having incomes in the six figures.

   It is commonplace for these people to behave in ways that can only be called “thuggish”.

4. #104
   On June 18th, 2009 at 5:39 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   It was not so long ago that we all knew the government run unions in Communist states represented the interests of the states and not the workers.

   Will it be noted in history books that in the USA in the early 21st century that the union run governments represented the interests of the union bosses instead of the rank and file and other citizens of the state?

   If this isn’t RICO but Operation Rescue praying in front of abortion clinics is then something is definitely wrong with the RICO laws.

5. #105
   On June 18th, 2009 at 5:41 pm, Misscheryl said:

   It is commonplace for these people to behave in ways that can only be called “thuggish”.

   I completely disagree (for what it’s worth). I believe you are associating this behavior (in this specific incident) with a group that is known for thuggery. I do not feel if, for instance, priests got together and told a candidate “you are no longer representing what we value. You want to tax our churches and we need this money, and if you continue do so, we will vote you out?”

   Tell me what is the difference, except the messenger? Forget what issue is resulting in this behavior. Don’t you think you may be influenced by this woman’s demeanor AND the fact that this involves a union?

   oh, and PS – I dispise unions.

6. #107
   On June 18th, 2009 at 5:45 pm, Ragspierre said:

   If this isn’t RICO but Operation Rescue praying in front of abortion clinics is then something is definitely wrong with the RICO laws.

   Bulls-eye. The laws exempting unions from anti-trust and anti-competition statues, RICO, etc., have this wrong with them…

   they were passed by politicians, many of whom were and are statists (socialists and/or fascists). They were passed to give UNIONS special abilities, and to give people in the private sector special liabilities.

7. #108
   On June 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pm, zyzzyg said:

   On June 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pm, NJ-Aviator said: #55

   and

   On June 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, fulldroolcup said: #93

   It is like the LGBT alliance who are pulling out of a recent fundraiser for the Democrats and to be attended by Pres Obama.

   The LGBT alliance thought they had an ally in Pres Obama and supported his election with the notion that he would pursue their agenda – DADT, civil unions, benefits, etc.

   Since Pres Obama has been less than forceful in pursuing the LGBT agenda, they are pulling back their support.

   Republicans who became Democratic in their spending behaviour suffered the same lack of support.

   If you don’t listen to the constituencies that supported you, and not follow through on your promises, they have the freedom to either support that person in the future, or not.

   A better characterization would be pissed off, and not thuggery.

8. #109
   On June 18th, 2009 at 5:50 pm, Ragspierre said:

   Misscheryl said:

   I made myself mist-understood.

   The lady in the clip is not that to which I referred. I refer to public employee unions using thug union tactics, including illegal job actions and strikes, criminal intimidation, etc. I also refer to contract demands that include work rules and such that are simple theft, cronyism, nepotism, etc.

9. #110
   On June 18th, 2009 at 6:11 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

   Misscheryl said:

   It is commonplace for these people to behave in ways that can only be called “thuggish”.

   I completely disagree (for what it’s worth). I believe you are associating this behavior (in this specific incident) with a group that is known for thuggery. I do not feel if, for instance, priests got together and told a candidate “you are no longer representing what we value. You want to tax our churches and we need this money, and if you continue do so, we will vote you out?”

   Misscheryl, I respectfully disagree. Even using the example of the priests, that’s not about their personal gain. With this union, it is about their personal gain. And what makes it worse it, about 1/3 to half of it’s members are public employees. Those people enjoy some of the safest jobs ever to exist on the face of the earth and have the most generous pension/benefits packages known to mankind. They got those deals by doing exactly what this woman is doing. And who pays for that? We the taxpayers do.

   How would it be different if I… lets say I have the power to tell the local Republcian Committee who to put up as a candidate… then I go to the incumbent and tell him or her…”If you don’t see to it that I get a variance on my property to subdivide and sell it, you will not be the next Representative from this district!”

   How is it different?

   The variance is legal.

   The influence I have on the local Republican committe is legitimate.

   I’m just using my influence to get what I want.

   Hmmm… sounds like just what the SEIU is doing. Throwing around power that most people don’t have to get what they want.

   Sounds somewhat “questionable” to me… Maybe even a bit RICO.

10. #111
    On June 18th, 2009 at 6:20 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Any action by LGBT groups is simply Kabuki theatre. They KNOW Obama supports granting special rights to them. They KNOW he is lying when he says he doesn’t support “same sex marriage.” They may be upset that he isn’t pushing their agenda at this moment but they know he will eventually push for special rights for LGBT.

    Of course, this is the problem politicians face when they promise everyone everything. Some promises are more easily set aside. Once Obama thinks he has accumulated enough power to ignore the will of the majority of people he will bestow special rights upon LGBT people.

    BTW, the APA has finally admitted there is no “gay gene.” Of course it is hard to find this groundbreaking rediscovery in the LWM! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940.

    On June 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On June 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pm, NJ-Aviator said: #55

    and

    On June 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, fulldroolcup said: #93

    It is like the LGBT alliance who are pulling out of a recent fundraiser for the Democrats and to be attended by Pres Obama.

    The LGBT alliance thought they had an ally in Pres Obama and supported his election with the notion that he would pursue their agenda – DADT, civil unions, benefits, etc.

    Since Pres Obama has been less than forceful in pursuing the LGBT agenda, they are pulling back their support.

    Republicans who became Democratic in their spending behaviour suffered the same lack of support.

    If you don’t listen to the constituencies that supported you, and not follow through on your promises, they have the freedom to either support that person in the future, or not.

    A better characterization would be pissed off, and not thuggery.

11. #112
    On June 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pm, Misscheryl said:

    With this union, it is about their personal gain. And what makes it worse it, about 1/3 to half of it’s members are public employees. Those people enjoy some of the safest jobs ever to exist on the face of the earth and have the most generous pension/benefits packages known to mankind. They got those deals by doing exactly what this woman is doing. And who pays for that? We the taxpayers do.

    This I understand and agree with.

    On the rest of your post, I need to really think about it before I comment. I understand your premise, I just think using your influence to accomplish something is 1) typically what is done in this country and around the world (the strongest vs the weakest) and 2) not always a bad thing.

    That said, I don’t think we’ll agree on everything, so, I’ll leave it at that. If my husband doesn’t take me out to diner tonight…well – he’ll regret it

12. #113
    On June 18th, 2009 at 6:55 pm, Jvette said:

    With this union, it is about their personal gain. And what makes it worse it, about 1/3 to half of it’s members are public employees. Those people enjoy some of the safest jobs ever to exist on the face of the earth and have the most generous pension/benefits packages known to mankind. They got those deals by doing exactly what this woman is doing. And who pays for that? We the taxpayers do.

    This is not about policy that benefits society. I can understand that some disagree with my stance on granting marital status to gay couples. That is a policy that affects society and is legitimate debate. Or whether businesses should be taxed and at what level. These are all things that go into creating a stable and prosperous society. When I exercise my vote, it is for policies not personal gain.

    These unions are not about that ideal. They are in it for their own gain. They want the government to legitimize their extortion of business. They want the government to legitimize their intimidation of their own members. They want the government to back up their desire to force people into unions where they will be forced to pay dues which are then used to bribe or intimidate public officials into supporting the union’s radical agenda.

    This woman and her union is a thug, holding the officials hostage to her demands. The difference between this and private citizens exercising their vote is vast.

13. #114
    On June 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pm, frontierguy said:

    I really don’t want to hear Californians whining. I live here, and I don’t know how many people I told that they needed to pass the propositions put forward by Arnold in the special election. They voted them all down because of the commercials bombarding them on tv by people like the woman in this video. It was all about how Arnold was going to reduce the budget for things like education and clean water, all those flowery spending props Californians love to vote for. I told them the unions are a bunch of crooks, they don’t listen, then get angry and storm off when you get to say I told you so. Oh yeah, the LGBT went ape sh#t over voting down the props when Arnold said he did not support gay marriage, kinda the same as Obama. California got what it asked for, the rest of America is next.

14. #115
    On June 18th, 2009 at 7:06 pm, Ragspierre said:

    This may make this more clear…

    If I give money to a political candidate, and link my donation to the expectation of a favor that the candidate will have the power to grant as a result of holding public office….

    that is graft. Simple, corrupt, quid pro quo. That is criminal, and people have gone to jail for it all through our history. Not as many as should have…

    Think of Bill Clinton’s Pardon-O-Rama fire sale during his last days in office.

    If the NRA supports a politician because they have common cause, that is simple politics. There is no expectation of individual gain as a result of corrupt influence.

    Does that help?

15. #116
    On June 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pm, Misscheryl said:

    Yes, Rags, in that context I agree completely.

    If I give money to a political candidate, and link my donation to the expectation of a favor that the candidate will have the power to grant as a result of holding public office….

16. #117
    On June 18th, 2009 at 7:26 pm, Little Ma said:

    I think we’re over-analyzing the ad. It could be very effective if it causes its targeted audience to make the requested phone calls, thus achieving the goal desired by the California Republican Party.

17. #118
    On June 18th, 2009 at 9:02 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    And what makes it worse it, about 1/3 to half of it’s members are public employees. Those people enjoy some of the safest jobs ever to exist on the face of the earth and have the most generous pension/benefits packages known to mankind.

    not entirely true…as a civil service employee, I went through two RIF’s (reduction in force). Luckily I was more senior than several other employees who lost their jobs after 15 years in service…no retirement just gone so it’s not as safe as you might think, at least in the DOD area…

18. #119
    On June 18th, 2009 at 9:45 pm, vickisoup said:

    We all vote for the candidate that we believe will implement policies that favor the issues we hold most dear. When they perform, we vote to re-elect them. When they don’t perform, we vote them out of office.
    I have plenty of legitimate gripes about the SEIU, but this woman’s honest challenge to the legislators doesn’t offend me.
    Let’s talk about how Obama tried to withhold fed money from the State unless they acquiesced to the SEIU demands. That’s something that totally disgusts and offends me.
    

19. #121
    On June 19th, 2009 at 8:53 am, pressto said:

    The SEIU and woman are trying to get the GOP to pull this ad according to the Sacbee.

    Disabled son’s mom wants GOP to pull ‘union bully’ ad

20. #122
    On June 19th, 2009 at 9:05 am, Socky said:

    Uh… technically, the article says he has “developmental disabilities” which could mean pretty much anything. It’s a very broad category. It could be just ADD or something.

21. #123
    On June 19th, 2009 at 9:53 am, spaceycakes said:

    I couldn’t care less who wants the ad pulled. If you don’t want to be shown in a ‘bad light’, then don’t appear in public saying things you will regret later (even if you really mean them).

22. #124
    On June 19th, 2009 at 6:11 pm, zorro said:

    Who does she think she is? A Teamster? What a thug punk. In my view, unions = government sanctioned organized crime.