It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dem lawmaker on labor protests: 'Get a little bloody when necessary'

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Really???

From the democrat party that tried to blame the Tucson shootings on Republican flyers and speeches?

Again the hypocrisy of the left is apparent for all to see.

Take a look at this article where a U.S. congressman (D - Mass.) is actually quoted advocating violence to help union supporters get their way.

source


Sometimes it's necessary to get out on the streets and "get a little bloody," a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin.

"I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going," Capuano said, according to the Dorchester Reporter. "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."



edit on 2/23/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


You beat me to it.. Not exactly "civilized" speech..

Is it too much to ask that both sides go into these things with open minds and a give / take mentality?

I wish my profession had collective bargaining, but we are prohibited. Teachers amke more money than I do.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
this has been my point all along...unions and their supporters relish violence and strong-arm tactics when attempting to have their needs met.

politically motivated violence is owned by the left, the progressives, the stalinists and the unions. they are all one in the same.


edit on 23-2-2011 by MMPI2 because:



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
once his handlers get word that this democrat idiot actually encouraged violence during demonstrations, he WILL come out and issue a retraction, say he was taken out of context, misquoted, etc., and it is the right-wing talk show hosts that are out to smear him.

he will be lying, of course.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I wonder what the people who tore apart that one guy who used the term "empty the clip" or whatever, have to say about this?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 
It is politics as usual. Nothing new here. It just has to be blown out of proportion in the media and showed to the rest of the world. But unfortunately that will not happen with the current administration in power since it is their party.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by angrymomma
I wonder what the people who tore apart that one guy who used the term "empty the clip" or whatever, have to say about this?


Judging by the lack of attention this thread is getting they apparently don't have anything to say.

Why that is - I dunno. Maybe they could enlighten us?

My personal two cents is that if speech that incites violence is wrong coming from the right then it is must also be wrong coming from the left.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I am old - back when we took to the streets when I was young "Get a little bloody" didn't necessarily mean violence - it meant getting bloodied by police in an otherwise peaceful protest or demonstration. Why would one assume this idiot is advocating violence instead of admitting the real probability that any kind of protesters are going to get their heads bashed in. Again. Still. This is America after all, when push comes to shove is when the trouble begins. I remember Watts, Harlem, 68 Democratic Convention, Raising of the Pentagon, Kent State, MLK's assisination - not all of these riots and demonstrations began peacefully, but the response to them was mostly the same: force, violence - the iron fist.

ganjoa



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I am not sure how other people fight but when I am getting bloody, it means I am the one being wounded. Getting bloody is not really something I associate with beating someone else. They bleed when I hurt them.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 


So he's advocating them going out and getting hurt?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


I have two words in response...well...really one word typed twice.

Surprise

Surprise



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by angrymomma
reply to post by ganjoa
 


So he's advocating them going out and getting hurt?


Unfortunately to a lot of people who can remember, that is exactly what protesting meant.

Getting hurt, arrested, even killed. I believe some people in some other countries can currently relate. Sometimes people have to give of themselves for the greater good.
edit on 23-2-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


So do you now condemn all uses of rhetoric like this...or just in this case???

Because I think he is a moron for using that kind of rhetoric...just as Palin is....I am ok calling it out on both sides.

Are you?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
If the congressman was making a call to draw blood, then I condemn him for such statements. On the other hand, I'm not completely convinced that's what he's calling for in his remarks. What he said was, that sometimes you have to "get bloody" which could imply that it will be the protestors who get bloodied by the national guard.

I don't necessarily see this as a call for violence. As a union member, I would take this as a warning that I could be physically harmed by those who oppose my fight for justice, but that it would still be worth it in the end. I guess it depends on which side of the issue you're on



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I've seen some twisting and spinning in my day by implying the senator wants folks to go out and get beat up in a peaceful protest is beyond ridiculous. The guy got carried away and let his true union thuggery out.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


to "get bloody" in this context means one thing - to use violence as a means to solve a labor dispute.

now, you can subject yourself to conditions that allow you to bleed or you can subject someone else to conditions that cause them to bleed. whatever the case, the precipitating concept is shameful and beneath contempt.

his meaning is perfectly clear - he believes that the use of violence - having someone bleed - is justified for the unions to get their needs met.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by Flatfish
 


to "get bloody" in this context means one thing - to use violence as a means to solve a labor dispute.



Like I said, if that's what he meant by it, then I condemn his statements. Now, for you to imply that his statements can only be taken one way, is another thing entirely. May I ask, Which dictionary did you get your "one & only" definition from?

IMO, here is an example of a statement that can be taken only one way, it's from Glenn Beck so you may like it; "You May Have To Shoot Them In The Head."
edit on 23-2-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


his statements meant one thing because i said they meant one thing.

this topic is not up for debate. he is a union supporting thug. this is fact and it is undeniable.

for your purposes in this matter, the discussion is over.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


My apology, had I know that you were such an authority on these matters, I never would have questioned your opinion in the first place.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I think these statements are reprehensible and have no place in civil discourse. I support the protesters, but I do not support the use of force on either side. We should be able to talk this through (if only Walker was willing to negotiate and not just "get yelled at for an hour" and then not budge).

But I will be bookmarking this thread and reminding the posters in it later on when the shoe is on the other foot. So thank you for this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join