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.

 

(Wisconsin) Capitol Chaos: Lawmakers Get Death Threats

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 

Got it.
Thanks.
I repudiate them. They are scum.

Now I suppose it's time to make excuses for the union thugs?
edit on 10-3-2011 by beezzer because: reeror




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by centurion1211
Some people don't like it much when pro-union protesters are called "thugs", but what else do you call people that make death threats against democratically elected people trying to perform their jobs


TEA

PARTY???



Prove it.


I suppose you need transcripts

www.politico.com...

www.wired.com...


I condemn those actions.

Now you ...



I do too



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenfox83
Silly, dumb, and stupid thats what you call the extremists. Everyone knows if you kill a politician another

Mr. Walker is an extremist, a radical "christian" and a dictator. So is he dumb, stupid and silly?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Do you know who is making the death threats? If you don't, then you can't say it is "the other party". We don't yet know who is making the treaths.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Who cares? Usually, when a person intends or plans on killing someone, they don't make threats. People who issue a threat do so in the hopes that others will carry out the action. No person( with intent to kill) would give warning, as it would hinder the very same act they claim they will carry out. No actual crime has been commited, yet. People who make threats do so for attention.
edit on 3/10/2011 by LordBaskettIV because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
No actual crime has been commited, yet. People who make threats do so for attention.
edit on 3/10/2011 by LordBaskettIV because: (no reason given)


Wrong.

Threatening someone with death or great bodily harm is the definition of the crime of assault. They can also be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime.

But even if these thugs did not really plan to carry out their threats, their purpose is clear (well, to most) - and that is an attempt to intimidate Wisconsin elected officials AND their families which also include innocent children.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by greenfox83
 


sure, but the next sock puppet will be more respectful of the people


on the other hand how do we really know this came from the protestors it wouldn't be the 2st time a government made up a threat in order to "establish self-defense" as a justification for it's own violence.

have to agree however, that if it was a protester then it was very stupid, i mean come on, if the governor showed up hanging from a tree one morning, it would be much more effective in sending a message, re f-ing with the people.

now the dirt-bags and the koch [rhymes with coke] bros. now have a clear field. humph!!! pretty convenient.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

i was gonna call you out on usually making more intelligent posts...

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Janky Red
 

Got it.
Thanks.
I repudiate them. They are scum.

Now I suppose it's time to make excuses for the union thugs?
edit on 10-3-2011 by beezzer because: reeror


ok i'll go easy...

and to all the anti union folks and to those who think the tea party are something other than re-fried republicans

Mike Lee: Federal Child Labor Laws Are Unconstitutional (VIDEO) www.abovetopsecret.com...

and a little history lesson showing that those who are against unions will stoop to anything

Timeline_of_labor_issues_and_events en.wikipedia.org...


1790s 1797 (United States) Profit sharing originated at Albert Gallatin's glass works in New Geneva, Pennsylvania. [edit]

1800s 1806 (United States) Commonwealth vs. Pullis was the first reported case arising from a labor strike in the United States. After a three-day trial, the jury found the defendants guilty of "a combination to raise their wages" and fined. [edit]

1820s 27 April 1825 (United States) Carpenters in Boston were the first to stage a strike for the 10-hour work-day. [edit]

1830s 3 July 1835 (United States) Children employed in the silk mills in Paterson, New Jersey go on strike for the 11-hour day, 6 days a week. [edit]

1840s March 1842 (United States) Commonwealth v. Hunt was a landmark legal decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the subject of labor unions. Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that unions were legal organizations and had the right to organize and strike. Before this decision, labor unions which attempted to 'close' or create a unionized workplace could be charged with conspiracy. See Commonwealth vs. Pullis

1847 (Scotland) The Educational Institute of Scotland, the oldest teachers' trade union in the world, was founded. [edit]
1850s July 1851 (United States) Two railroad strikers are shot dead and others injured by the state militia in Portage, New York.

21 April 1856 (Australia) Stonemasons and building workers in Melbourne achieve an Eight-hour day, the first organized workers in the world to achieve an 8-hour day, with no loss of pay.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
you know back in the day, they used to hang, chop off heads, death by impalement, death by rack,and many other forms of executions of the members of the powers that were in control of the governments in order to appease the masses. I'm still a firm believer in these practices, because its a Just and wise practice that lets both sides understand that there truly is justice in this world of evil. I say any group or individual in government that abuses the public trust, should be openly executed to send the message to the rest that, either stay out of politics, or walk very gently and do what you're being paid to do with the utmost of respect and care



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by anumohi
you know back in the day, they used to hang, chop off heads, death by impalement, death by rack,and many other forms of executions of the members of the powers that were in control of the governments in order to appease the masses. I'm still a firm believer in these practices, because its a Just and wise practice that lets both sides understand that there truly is justice in this world of evil. I say any group or individual in government that abuses the public trust, should be openly executed to send the message to the rest that, either stay out of politics, or walk very gently and do what you're being paid to do with the utmost of respect and care




Yeah, you're in favor ...

Right up until they decide it's you or people you like that needs "justice".

Study the French Revolution as an example.

Seriously, IF you had bothered to think this through at all before posting, you could have understood that the only thing that would result from your idea would be that no one would run for office, and if they did, they would never make a decision because someone or some group would always be there to say what they'd decided was worth dying for.


edit on 3/10/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait to see these politicians dropping like flies. I just hope the operation is smooth enough to where the assassins will avoid capture until every last corporate puppet is dead. People say that peaceful protest will eventually bring change. Our protests have been peaceful, yet increasingly ineffective for way too long. Maybe they shouldn't even go for the politicians, just corporate leaders and the top 1% in America. After they're gone the corrupt politicians will resign en masse for lack of a means to profit.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I've dealt indirectly with unions from both sides and let's not pretend that this isn't standard operating procedure.

Back when I was a teenager my dad worked as a cement truck driver and was a member of the Teamsters. There was some crap move pulled by the employer and the drivers went on strike. One day that I was off school, my dad let me go with him to picket to see what was happening with the guys picketing and see what it was all about. It was an eye opener in many ways.

The drivers were nice enough and were good guys as far as I could tell. The union people there, not quite so much. Where we happened to be situated was near where some so called "scabs" were trying to get into the office. Most of the drivers were angry, but at least behaved somewhat civilly. The union guys, again, not so much. Right there, with me, a teenager, standing only a few feet away, the "scabs" were threatened that they and their families would "pay" and to not sleep too soundly because they wouldn't be waking up in the morning. Right the heck in front of me. My dad quietly took me a bit away and explained that he didn't support that at all and that it wasn't appropriate behavior, but that he couldn't do anything about it or he would be risking putting his family in danger. I have never forgotten those words because they scared me so much and I was "on their side", as it were.

Not very long after that incident, my dad left and started his own alarm installation company. It is a non-union company. Now, it is a successful company and my husband works with my family in the company. Regularly the guys go out on installs and have to deal with union guys doing other parts of a new build, whether residential or commercial. Every single time, every one, my company has to leave and go back at night, after the union guys have left for the day, to be able to do their work. They have been blocked from entering and physically intimidated into leaving jobs. This has happened repeatedly when I have been with them along as a "gofer". The union guys are disrespectful and rude and often have zero hesitation in resorting to threats to get my company to leave. We have had our equipment damaged and been told to our faces that it was to ensure that we didn't come back onto "their" job site again.

Sorry, but with the ongoing experiences that I have had with union guys from the Teamsters to the IBEW to just about any other union shop involved in building structures, there isn't a thing on this earth that would convince me that this isn't standard operating procedure. If you broke apart every union in this country, I wouldn't shed a single tear or have a second of sorrow for them. They might have been necessary at one point in time, but that time isn't now. Now it is corruption and greed and power and they will hurt anyone who stands in the way of maintaining that.

Maybe if I had had different experiences, I might have had some sympathy for these people in Wisconsin, but, things being what they are, I don't. At all. I just see this threat made as one more in a long line of craptastic behavior and tyranny by union thugs who aren't getting their own way. Kinda like a toddler throwing a tantrum sprawled full out on the floor of a crowded store, screaming at the top of their lungs, kicking their feet and pounding their fists on the ground and anyone stupid enough to pass close by, throwing whatever they can reach and threatening to continue until they get what they want. Bust the unions up and good riddance.

Take care,
Cindi



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by patent98310
 



I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait to see these politicians dropping like flies.


Really? I don't think you quite realize what you are asking for, there.


I just hope the operation is smooth enough to where the assassins will avoid capture until every last corporate puppet is dead.


What's wrong? Can't do something so simple as kill a person? It's not difficult - people do it by accident all the time.

Sitting idle and waiting for someone to do your dirty work - shameful. You advocate the killing of someone because you are not content, but are content to sit there and hope someone else does what you want done. I'm hungry right now - I hope someone brings me a sandwich.

Unless you intend to actually do something about it - it's best you refrain from such extreme comments. More on why later.


People say that peaceful protest will eventually bring change.


People say a lot of dumb things.


Our protests have been peaceful, yet increasingly ineffective for way too long.


Such a lack of perspective. If only 10,000 people protest for changes that influence 20,000,000 people - should the protesters be accommodated? Protests don't guarantee change. You merely have the right to assemble and speak freely. You don't have the "right to protest" - it is the fact that you have the right to assemble in a non-disruptive manner and speak freely that gives you the freedom to protest.

You don't have a right to impose whatever changes you want to. You have to have popular support - kind of what the whole concept of collective self-governance is.


Maybe they shouldn't even go for the politicians, just corporate leaders and the top 1% in America.


Amusing how you create delusional phantasms ("they") to kill anyone you don't agree with.

We'll not turn this into an economic debate. There's more than enough of those, and all you need to do is read through my previous posts in my record to see there's no room for disagreement with me.

However, what you are doing is forming a group of 'thugs' to go around and kill people. You are jealous of what a wealthy person has, and decide to take it. You are angry at what a politician has done, and decide to kill them.

That is something that will, inevitably, lead to war. Your thugs will eventually see me as fit to kill - for some reason or another - exactly why doesn't really matter. I already see you and your ilk as sub-sentient - the decision to remove you from my presence is a cost/effect formula as opposed to a moral or ethical process. I'll gather a counter and, in the terms of e-hate, rape your silly band of pirates.

But it's larger than you and me. When one person is willing to forgo the general respect of life and kill another - the delicate balance of society rapidly decays into hyper-reactive displays of resolve. Ideological bases quickly begin to value the absence of opposition over the respect of another individual's life. At this point - people kill simply out of disagreement.

And as I've already stated - you don't qualify as human to me in your current psychological state. You're foolish and therefor dangerous.

I may disagree with people - vehemently. But I am not so simple of a being as to allow fear of hunger or foreclosure drive me to hatred of another person or group of people. I'll do what is necessary for me to survive and only resort to violence when absolutely necessary. When you and your imaginary thugs come to interfere in my life because you can't seem to manage yours - I'll treat you as I would any impending threat.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join