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.
The sedate, old fashioned M&I Bank on the Capitol Square has gained some notoriety in recent weeks. Oddly, a tunnel in the M&I parking garage links to the capitol basement. Dubbed the "rat hole to the Walker palace", the tunnel was used by Governor Scott Walker to ferry lobbyists into the capitol building to hear his budget address during a time when the capitol was in a virtual lock down in defiance of a court order and after Sheriffs has quit the building refusing to be a "palace guard."
Word is beginning to spread that M&I is one of Walker's biggest backers. Top executives at M&I Bank have long been boosters of Walker. M&I Chief Executive Dennis Kuester and his wife gave $20,000 to Walker in recent years. When you package individual and PAC contributions by employers, M&I is number one -- at $57,000 dollars. The firm apparently uses a conduit to bundle much of its money to Walker. Flyers, webpages, and Facebook sites have popped up encouraging WI consumers to boycott Walker campaign contributors and "Pull the Plug on M&I Bank."
Joe Conway, President Madison Fire Fighters Local 311, explained to CMD that the action was totally spontaneous, but that "economic transparency" was going to be a big theme in the fight ahead. "Groups will be sending letters to Walker's major donors giving them the opportunity to support the teachers, firefighters and police in their community." Conway is well aware that new polling shows that 74% of Wisconsin families support collective bargaining rights for public workers.
Two of these letters are already in the mail to M&I Bank and Kwik Trip. "The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker's efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company," the letter says. "However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table."
Now they don't specifically say the following, but it's happened in the past when businesses refused to pay for "protection". Not hard to imagine how this will go down if the businesses say no. Someone breaks in and the police don't show up. Or there is a fire and the firemen "somehow" don't get the alarm.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
And another grossly misleading titled union-bashing post. One that cherry-picks the salient points about this "threatening" letter.
@centurion
Now they don't specifically say the following, but it's happened in the past when businesses refused to pay for "protection". Not hard to imagine how this will go down if the businesses say no. Someone breaks in and the police don't show up. Or there is a fire and the firemen "somehow" don't get the alarm.
Great job of inserting words into someone's mouth. Are you accusing these police and firefighters of threatening to refuse to do their job and allow a business or homes to burn or people to be victimized by crime? No, they "don't specifically say the following", you'll do it on their behalf so you can continue to call them thugs, meanwhile the rights of workers to oppose this incestuous relationship between the oligarchs and their puppets gets whittled away.
Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by beezzer
Hate to say it but they think that deaths are justified as long as they get what they want.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by centurion1211
The "Threatening letter" claim is what is misleading. I suppose a boycott is a form of threat, a threat not to do business with said business.
What's misleading is how you chose to interpret this threat - as a threat to do violence or physical harm.
Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by ohioriver
Ok my friend. I'm back. It only took two minutes to ferret this one out. The link for your information was Outside the Beltway, a conservative blog. The article you read was lifted from the New York Post. Do you know about the New York Post? It is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox News and The Wall Street Journal among dozens of other media outlets around the world. When we speak of MSM around here this media empire is as close as one can get to the perfection of it. Murdoch constantly is funding right wing causes an candidates across all borders and state lines. Etc.
But the thing about the Post? It has been losing money for years. He,Murdoch, keeps it even though it runs in the red, so that it can run false headlines and biased stories which portray anything liberal in a bad light. Especially for members of the conservative echo chamber. He IS the definition of propaganda.
I thought you might like to know just who it is you are getting your information from
Seeya
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by whaaa
Seing how the democrats have behaved when they didn't get their way, I can't WAIT for the elections in 2012.
They are going to get a further, ruder awakening.
And of course, they wil resort to violence again.
The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review opined that "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."[31]
Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People's Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television.[32]
Ian Spiegelman, a former reporter for the paper's Page Six gossip column who had been fired by the paper in 2004,[33] said in a statement for a lawsuit against the paper that in 2001 he was ordered to kill an item on Page Six about a Chinese diplomat and a strip club because it would have "angered the Communist regime and endangered Murdoch’s broadcast privileges."... (see source for rest of article)