I was listening to the Ed Schultz show the other day. His guest was a union leader of national renown who's name I don't recall. Anyway, the guest was speaking favorably about many "occupy" offshoots, including a movement to "occupy" homes slated for foreclosure. The stated justification for the occupation was because the banks were unable to prove ownership of the homes.
Perhaps so, but then I somehow doubt that the "occupiers" had any proof whatsoever that the home belonged to them either. So what you have is a double standard endorsed by the union thug. Banks must have impeccable proof of ownership absent any clerical errors or they lose their property to a mob with no reasonable claim of ownership.
Another reason why the union thugs lost me years ago. Envy is the only reason to side with them on this issue and most others. No thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
And when they are evicted they will pour concrete down the toilets, put holes in the walls and defecate all over the floors. They won't steal copper pipes to make a few bucks at the scrapyard - that would require some ambition and effort.
@ Anon: Isn't that pretty much what the Capitol occupiers did to that renown establishment? What a suprise they'd do the same thing to any other real estate they don't own.
@Denis: Isn't that pretty much what happened when the unionistas, with the President's help, elbowed aside the legitimate stock and bond holders of GM? Only to insert themselves into half-ownership of the company... the other half owned by the taxpayers, but without the taxpayers having any say-so? Only in the parallel universe liberals live in can squatting be respectful.
Yes GH, the common thread being a disregard for the rule of law in favor of a might-makes-right mentality that sadly is also favored by the President of the United States. Pathetic.
I'm not sure what was actually said, but once again we see your ire for unions and Occupy Wall Street Demonstrators, neither of which caused this melt-down and never a word is said about the crooks that caused this mess, The GOPster deregulators, The Banksters and their lobbyists, the folks and Standard and Poors who rated junk bonds as AAA and then have the nerve to down grade America's bond rating, because of financial problems their malfeasance brought on. You folks are just precious!
Per usual Sean you are attempting to muck up the conversation. There are plenty of areas of disagreement between us as to the causes of the housing meltdown and associated economic problems, but that is not what this particular thread is about. Surely we can agree that there are foreclosures and that some "occupy" folks intend to occupy said homes. That said, do you disagree with my position that the "occupiers" have no legitimate claim whatsoever on the properties in question? I will assume that further attempts to change the subject will mean that you agree with my argument or that you disagree but have no coherent argument to offer.
"Union ethics." An oxymoron if there ever was one!
Denis, I've heard about the intent to occupy foreclosed homes only here, which makes it third hand hearsay at best. But IF that is their intent and IF the union official actually condones it, I disagree with both of them.
Having said that, I won't hold my breath waiting for those who have not just contemplated, but actually committed crimes, huge crimes against the entire nation, to be prosecuted, or for those of you here to criticize them at all.
In today's Merica, we bust little criminals, the really big ones we admire or call too big to fail.
Oh and "corporate ethics" is an oxymoron if there ever was one! Should we disband all the corporations too, along with the unions? Silly me, I forgot that we are now living in the Plutocratic State of America where money has the Constitutional right to assembly and people who are workers do not! Right Gearheaded?
Your arguments are becoming more specious as time goes by. Nothing like setting up yet another false argument; you can certainly argue yourself in circles. Corporations ultimatly are answerable to their stock holders. Unions are supposed to be answerable to their membership. But alas, the rank and file have no real voice. Their leadership continues to be the thug enforcer division of Democrat politics.
Corporations will disband via the market if they aren't serving it. Thanks to Scott Walkers Act 10, unions too will disband if they can't make their case to their membership of their value. Money talks, Sean, and when the rank and file have their say, they'd rather keep their dues in their pockets, instead of having it auto-withheld by union force.
BS GH
Post a Comment