Thursday, December 13, 2012

Stuff

Right to Work a BFD
Since nit wit union thug Jimmy anyone seen dad Hoffa claimed there would be civil war if MI were to become a right to work state, here’s an apt Civil War analogy Jimmbo.

The union losing MI is like the Confederacy losing Richmond. The loss of Richmond signaled to all concerned that the Civil War was pretty much over. Richmond was not only the political center of the Confederacy, it was an industrial center as well.

MI was the political center of the American organized labor movement.  The analogy kind of falls apart at this point. While the auto industry made MI the epicenter of union organization, ironically, unions long ago destroyed the industrial Mecca that was once MI in general and Detroit in particular. Still if the video evidence is to be believed, union thugs were out to defend MI at all cost.

The loss of MI to right to work status is, as ever slowing Slow Joe J-O-B-S is a 3 letter word Biden might say, a big F-ing deal.

With regard to the violence, who is surprised? If you are surprised, why? Unions have gotten what they want from American employers and workers since their inception by violence.

This is not about the good that unions have done and they have done a lot. It’s about the pendulum swinging way past center to point that unions are so adversarial with business it seems their main objective is to screw business to the point that they have to close their doors. It’s about union slugs drinking and smoking pot on the job and the company not being able to cashier them. It’s about paying slug union thugs to do nothing adding to the cost of whatever product is trying to be sold.  That forces business to look overseas or down south for labor willing to work for a day's wages rather than extorting it.

Unions, like their Lib beneficiaries in politics, have decided that they have a taste for goose, so to satisfy their appetite, they’ve wrung the neck of the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Gagnam
Who is surprised this little waste Americans want to reside at 1600 PA Ave would invite a vile American hating no talent piece of $h!t to entertain at the White House? Were it not for the American soldiers he so despises, right now fat little Psy would be starving his @$$ off while performing as a sex toy for the 125th Mess Kit Repair Regiment of the Red Army of the People’s Republic of Korea.

I was hoping a Marine guard at the White House would get the opportunity to knock the $h!t out of the bastard. It was as great a disappointment that it didn’t happen as the election results.

Rule of five for gay marriage
The Nine Dopes in Robes, aka the Supreme Court, will hear a case on gay marriage. No doubt they will find the founders anticipated this development. They will discover a never heretofore known fact of law in Section 10 of Article 1 that the founders clearly meant to limit the several states from passing any laws contrary to Barney Frank’s sensibilities.

If the court had any sense, which after the Little Barrycare decision, I seriously doubt, they’d make this a state issue. The only reason abortion is as controversial an issue as it is, is that the court forced it on America. Had the state legislators been permitted to legislate abortion and be held accountable to the electorate for their decisions, there would be far less controversy.

If the court decides to go the way of Roe v. Wade it will have the exact same consequences and further divide an already severely fractured nation. So what will they do? Who knows? John Roberts may re-write decades of law to support some hare-brained decision that will in turn be litigated for the next 500 years. The court never seems to settle anything.  They just set the grounds for the next law suit. After all they are all lawyers. Who’s surprised that they act as a perpetual law suit machine for other lawyers?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Remember the stigma some 40 years ago of unmarried people living together. It was hidden. Then it was stylish and people claimed they had been liberated. No strings, no marriage! Now getting married is the rage, and a right! The Supreme Court has decided they will hear the case for getting married and determine if the word has a new meaning. But if the word is redefined is it really the same word? If a tree falls in the woods... "So what if me and my significant other have decided to legally co-habitate in the eyes of the law, without bias, and acheive a legal liberation from being unmarried?" Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. If people don't like that then they should get another word. Marriage has already been taken. The Griffin.