You conveniently ignore the fact that times have changed since 1937. In recent years, the violence perpetrated has been against those who choose not to adhere to the union way. History can teach us lessons, unions fail. They failed in the biggest union movement ever, the Soviet Union. Regardless of the union violence and intimidation, they will fail to monopolize the work force in the USA. Count on it.
And we can cite hundreds of examples of errant behavior on the other side - especially in later decaded following this example you cite.
It was a difficult time and transition. How long are you going to live TODAY as if it is the day that event occurred?
Grow up, get a brain and look at the situation the unions are causing today. They are the ones destroying America.
. . .and one more thing McKinley . . . Henry Ford did more to advance our culture, economic development, your quality of life and the American dream than ANY union ever did.
If it were up to the labor unions, we'd still be using horses and manual hand labor for assembly of things. Cars would cost over $100,000 at todays costs with the union's backwards work ethic.
McKinley --- don't you have a lecture today or is it finals week? Go to the student "UNION" and hang out. Leave us alone.
December 11, 2012 at 4:44pm
Why is the video edited to the very second before the union protestor takes a swing?
What happened before that? Why is the union protestor in the process of straightening up as the video returns?
December 11, 2012 at 11:41am
“Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.”
Like some legislative bodies banned African-Americans from attending the same schools as whites? Or banned women’s fears about being arbitrarity locked away in sanitariums from overriding their husbands’ decision to force her to? Or banned alcohol?
Exactly. People like Scalia would ban liberty as long as the end result matched their view on how the world should be. He sounds like any other religious zealot. They claim to be holier than thou and thus, they know whats best for us. Fascism by any other name...
i think clarence thomas is the only justice left that we can trust
December 7, 2012 at 4:02pm
STORMY1948: “Oh you will still be with Him in heaven but there is a crown your going to miss having.”
So heaven is like “Mean Girls”?
December 7, 2012 at 3:59pm
One Million Moms? More like five moms with web access.
December 3, 2012 at 6:47pm
Armed-Infidel: “… We like this country like it was before Liberalism began to urinate on our rights and freedom.”
Which is what the American Tories said after the American Revolution, and what the South said after their slaves were freed, and what the Eastern European pro-soviets now say about 1989-1991…
November 16, 2012 at 2:43pm
@ libertylion – Posted on November 16, 2012 at 12:47pm — “They don’t know the origins of “social justice” and just assume it is part of the principles of Christ.”.
What we call social justice IS part of the principles of The Christ Jesus.
Maybe not Paul, who never met Jesus and boasts about feuding with Jesus’ own brother over control of His legacy; maybe not the Catholic or dominant Prostestant denominations; but it is Jesus’s. Read The Sermon on the Mount instead of Paul’s nitpickery about congregational governance.
November 13, 2012 at 3:53pm
The states aren’t calling for secession – individuals are.
Kinda like saying New York State blew up the Murrah Building – because Timothy McVeigh was from there.
October 19, 2012 at 2:23pm
“I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced…”
It is considered wrong in Christian circles – at least in Jesus’ own circle – just to be DIVORCED, Mr. D’souza.
September 25, 2012 at 3:37pm
A man who jokes about his wife’s real-life airplane terror in front of 1,000 people is not someone you can trust to mend fences between Mid East leaders – and a worse man than one who doesn’t understand basic aeronautics.
No one who reads The Blaze seems to know what Sandra Fluke’s testimony was about.
There are medical benefits to contraceptives that have nothing to so with having sex.
Ms. Fluke’s planned testimony included the story of another student at Georgetown University law student whose was diagnosed to have a propensity for developing ovarian cysts – Her doctor prescribed a specific contraceptive medication for her that has the benefit of suppressing ovarian cyst development.
Georgetown’s policy is to cover a contraceptive if it is prescribed for such a purpose – at their discretion.
Georgetown’s review panel believed she and her doctor were simply lying about ovarian cysts in order for her to get the contraception for sex.
The medication cost $100 a month – as she was just getting by, like most students, at the end of the month she didn’t have the extra money.
A year later, she was rushed to the hospital – she thought her appendix burst. It turns out she DID develop an ovarian cyst. Emergency surgery removed it – at the cost of her being able to ever have children.
So because there might be a case where a specific contraception could have a medical benefit for a specific cause we MUST cover ALL contraction WITH NO COPAY.
Out of "fairness", because my heart medication has a copay, your inhaler has a copay. But NOT contraception.
Unprotected sex is more important for liberals than living and breathing...
Given your argument and your initial case, why didn't you bother to make THAT and not "ALL CONTRACEPTION FOR ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE you main goal?
You know what, I had a bald tire the other day, and a balding tire can cause a car accident.. therefore give every guy like me $50,000 for a brand new car.
That is what your argument looks like; you've taken a premise that seems rational (bald tires are risky) and conflated it to "hand everyone money for stuff they want regardless of the initial case".
I'm not impressed.
You must be horrible at budgeting since most people pay over $100 per month on eating out or other goodies in life. So if your needs are really that important, you make sacrifices in your wants in order to pay for your needs.
And health insurance companies don't cover diabetes testing supplies or other medical needs in life.
August 20, 2012 at 7:20am
Posted on August 20, 2012 at 12:44am
“Rape is a despicible act, but the child doesn’t deserve the punishment, the rapist does.”
You do not even bother to include the woman who was assaulted and violated. in your opinion on rape’s consequences? Disturbingly mysogynist.
Of course not. These people believe their religion entitles them to control a woman's reproduction, to the point of forcing them to carry a baby that has been forced on them. If it were up to them, they would deny emergency contraceptives to rape victims too.
This issue is not what the election is about. Abortion laws are not going to change, and certainly not because of one person's religious pro-life stance. Akin's voting record is solid. He is a person who can be trusted. Bruner and McCaskill run dirty campaigns. You won't see that done with Todd Akin. He lives his religion and will vote conservative and will vote his religious beliefs.....but the abortion issue in not going to come up in the senate so even if you don't like his position on this......you can look at everything else about this man and know that you are not getting a liar. I am not so sure you can trust Bruner who ran on being a businessman~~~big deal~~~with his dirty campaign how can you trust him~no voting record~nothing but smears. If the number one issue is abortion then vote for AirClaire and vote with Obama on everything. It is the Missouri voter's choice in November whether this abortion after rape is the most important issue. Akin was the best person running to overturn obamacare~not Bruner or Steelman!
This is a very important issue because it shows Akin's level of respect for the voter.
If he truly misspoke, he would have sought to clarify the actual comment people found issue with. Instead, he completely ignores it and expects his voters to buy his non-clarification. It's insulting to the intelligence of his constituents.
August 13, 2012 at 4:45pm
Being civil during a dialogue is not necessarily “endorsing”.
August 12, 2012 at 8:40pm
So a business owner who claims to believe in the Curse of Ham has the Constitutional right to refuse to serve black customers?
A Catholic who says “the Jews killed Jesus” can charge them higher prices?
You believe a Jehovah’s Witness can refuse to let her employees take Christmas off?
A Scientologist should petition for an ACA waiver against offering his employees and their families any insurance coverage for mental health?
August 9, 2012 at 10:34am
Uh, the Big Bang freed the matter and energy and the physical laws that have eventually allowed us to have life and consciousness and a planet that sustains us. It was a very good thing.
August 9, 2012 at 10:23am
With the exceptions of China and France, you are describing nations on the most atheist list as they were a generation or more ago. And in the case of the Czech Republic what was forced upon them by a foreign occupier.
One would assume you go around describing the U.S. as a nation created through the genocide of its native peoples.
August 8, 2012 at 4:48pm
“1. Romney left Bain in 1999 (do we really need to keep going over this?)”
Apparently, we do.
Romney argued vehemently to the Massachusetts Elections Board that he WAS fully active in Bain through 2002.
Also, Romney’s own signature – submitted on official filings to the IRS under penalty of perjury – verifies he was “the person in control” of Bain through 2002.
August 7, 2012 at 10:51am
Recent brain studies show why so many Christians insist that atheists “hate God” – some fundamentalists LITERALLY cannot imagine someone not believing what they believe.
So they think atheists MUST know God is there, and the only explanation they can come up with is that atheists choose to reject him.
August 6, 2012 at 4:32pm
As far as the man who had the gun was concerned, he WAS shooting at the bad guys.
July 21, 2012 at 7:08pm
Right, what you want in a dark packed panicking theater suddenly filling with tear gas is a few concealed carry guns drawn and firing.
Or are people carrying concealed supposed to automatically shoot anyone dressed in heavy duty police-issue?