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.

Comments

1. #101
   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.

2. #102
   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.

3. #103
   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.

4. #104
   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

5. #105
   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.

6. #106
   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.

7. #107
   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?

8. #108
   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….

9. #109
   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.

10. #110
    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…

11. #111
    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.
    

12. #112
    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

13. #113
    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.

14. #114
    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).

15. #115
    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.