What happened? Isn't Benghazi working out too well for you? Now you have to exaggerate something else all out of proportion?

Let me give you some advice, which I doubt you will take. Stop trying to make mountains out of molehills because eventually a mountain will come along and people will be so used to you guys molehilling that they won't believe you.

And the difference between wrting a post about:

At an event Thursday in Springfield, Mo., Scott Boston, a St. Louis area activist who has been involved with the Tea Party, told the crowd "we have to get Claire McCaskill out." "We have to kill the Claire Bear ladies and gentlemen," Boston said. "She walks around like she's some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she's an evil monster."

A quote from a "activist" to a crowd, and posting comments about,

“There will be blood,” warned Democratic Rep. Douglas Geiss yesterday from the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives. He was echoing the words of U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville), who in 2010 told a mob of union goons gathered on Beacon Hill to “get a little bloody.”

...an elected official speaking on the floor of the state house? These two seem quite similar to me, but you think one is a mountain and the other is a molehill, please explain.

Where does Rep. Geiss threaten violence? The meaing I get from his words is that it's the actions of irresponsible Republican legislators that are threatening to lead to bloodshed.

Nor do your claims gain any validity with the following: "...who in 2010 told a mob of union goons gathered on Beacon Hill to get a little bloody."

Hint: union members and their supporters do not refer to union members as "goons".

Pitiful, just pitiful...

Right and Left does not = right and wrong. Most of us get that. I wish you would get as worked up over people worshipping a god that they've never met, I mean why not get mad about that?

And why aren't you mad because the GOP lied to you by telling you that your golden handout would come when the wealthy got tax cuts. Here it is the end of 2012 and you are still waiting for that golden handout that the GOP promised you in 1981, here is a clue the GOP are running out of scape goats to blame for you not getting that golden handout they never intended to give you, all that garbage the GOP sold you was only to get you to vote against your own interests, every year the GOP gives handouts to the wealthy your chances for becoming wealthy has decreased 300%. Yet who are you mad at why everyone except the people who lied to you, the GOP.

ROBdon, So, What do you mean by not having a Choice and What is the Viewpoint of a Union that you mentioned?

Doug, the "goons" came from the reporter at the Boston Herald (hardly a right wing news organization) and the threat of violence came from his referencing a prior incident where the following quote was made, "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

So when he said "there will be blood" it was in the context of getting out on the streets and getting a "little bloody." And there were physical altercations in the mob of union supporters, I've seen the video and heard eye witness testimony.

As to whomitmay, I haven't been promised anything by the GOP as a "golden handout." Do you think I have because you feel the Democrats are making the promise of handouts and that they will deliver?

Sarge, I'm not sure what you are asking. If it is to other posts elsewhere, then the choice is that currently you have to pay union dues whether you want to be a union member or not, and then the union can use that money in the manner it sees fit. So, I think it is fair to have a choice if you want to be a union member or not. As to the "viewpoint" of the union, I guess it is just the opposite. They don't want you to have a choice in the matter.

I still ask, why no post decrying the call for and acts of violence on the side of the Union supporters?

ROBDON, Thank's for replying, One thing to understand, Union's support Candidates that have a Favorable Labor stance.It is not about all of the issue involved, Just labor.

The fight was staged. There was no blood.

RobDon, this action has started with trying to neuter union membership dues.

Why would a government official try to prevent union dues from being collected?

There could be a high possibility of bloodshed if the elected officials keep trying to dismantle union solidarity. This can only be viewed as trying to slam the political opposition, but in the process, the working folks view this as a personal attack on their livelihoods.

Also, another meaning of there will be blood, means the legislation they rammed through undemocratically may "bleed" working folks. You know, lower wages and benefits could be seen as draining life blood from workers.

They SAY they are just offering more choice, but why? Labor costs and divide and conquer.

People have a choice to work at non union jobs or not become a member if they are so opposed. But now they say the dues are "optional"? How much more sacrifice do they want from the working folks?

Like Sarge said, the union money backs pro labor candidates and pro labor legislation. Someone needs to stand up for working folks, because there sure are lots of candidates doing thing to aid businesses and wealthy with no business.

Why would a government official try to prevent union dues from being collected?

You can collect dues. You can't force membership. If someone doesn't pay dues, then they are no longer a member. If I'm a member of a club and stop paying dues, they drop my membership. Or, if I choose to stop being a member, I stop paying dues. Unions have not worked like that. To keep employment I had to pay the union. Why? What if I disagree with the union? Don't I have rights, too.

If the union provides value, hard working people do not mind paying for services, they are not freeloaders as other poster have implied.

I and others can contribute to candidates, parties, organizations who fight for what we believe in. That hasn't changed. What has changed is I'm not forced to contribute to an organization who's has an agenda with which I may not agree.

We live in a democracy and elections happen somewhere every year. If this is such an injustice, voters will have opportunity to correct it.

I worked in a union job for many years.

The union sends representatives to negotiate on workers behalf. All workers in the union represented job should pay for those people to negotiate and work on their behalf.

I would say if you disagree so much with the union, maybe a union job is not for you.

This is nothing more than divide and conquer, take money from opponents' campaign by using sneak attack legislation.

This is blatant power play against workers' rights.

I think those that bash the union, but take the pay raises and benefits have to look in the mirror and ask themselves:

why do I accept these things that I didn't sacrifice a thing to receive?

I say, if someone hates the union so much, they should see what other job they can find without one.

Having employees belonging to a union making higher wages would only lead to animosity and disruptions at work over pay and benefits.

Don't like unions, get some other job, then.

Choosing one sentence after I riffed on the "blood" comment.

But WHY would a government official try to prevent union dues from being collected?

Think, RobDon, why would they try so hard to prevent union dues from being collected?

not offering a choice/option for disgruntled union workers, as IF that were SUCH a problem and outraged workers rising up to say Please Save me from this injustice..

I'm not trying to pretend there is no political part of this, but it is present on both sides (as always). And, I don't hate the unions.

You keep saying maybe a union job isn't right for someone, well, it is a union job second, it is a job in manufacturing, or a certain skill, etc., first. Most people don't say, "i'm majoring in union and hope to get a union job," they say "I enjoy 'x' or have skills 'y' and want to find a job in that field.

Lastly, again, no one is preventing unions from collecting dues from members, they are preventing unions for forcing dues as a requirement for employment with a private company. Why should there have to be a third party? I understand there may be some benefits of a third party, but no one should be forced.

In the end, we just disagree on several points of this issue.

Just wondering if you think this is something that should take place in government capacity, when nobody asked for a redress of grievances regarding paying union dues as depriving them of a choice.

Now you're just being silly about majoring in union. RobDon.

This happened in Michigan where UAW are prominent. This is a surprise attack, a preemptive attack on union workers. Nobody ran on this issue, it was just passed quickly.

There should really be some soul-searching about our democratic process and I for one, am disgusted by the Repubs trying to divide and conquer, siding with employers over workers. ALEC is very busy, that should be stopped. If ALEC can do all this, then a union should be able to support legislation or candidates favoring labor.

When a person applies for a job, they are informed or should find out before they apply or train for these jobs there is a union and dues are X, contracts negotiated every Y years, with job description and expectations.

I knew the job was union when I was hired. The labor aspect should have representation, if businesses are represented.

People have a choice to work in union or non union careers.

A union provides a better wage, working conditions and benefits for the worker. The employer gets a well trained, experienced, dedicated and reliable employee.

Nobody ran on this issue, it was just passed quickly.

If you look at the history of the bill (in the House), you will see that it was introduced in January of 2011. And here's a poll on right-to-work that shows that the majority of Michigan support the issue. This poll was published in March of 2012. Why was a poll conducted on something that was not an issue in political debate? It has been part of the political discourse, to say it was a surprise is incorrect.

Now, the Governor said before the election it was not on his agenda but he also warned of political consequences of Proposal Two (an attempt by unions to make collective bargaining part of the constitution). The legislature forced the Governors hand on this issue. But, it has been part of politial dialog and campaigns.

It's highly suspect as to the passage, which clearly was an issue in Michigan.

But, I suppose the people of Michigan will find out what it means for wages and other laws, along with the rest of the people.

It's odd that you ask another question, but I suppose it's a pick and choose world.

Pick the word choice, then watch wages dip.

It still is clearly a path laid out, originating from where? The people that started the poll and those that have interest in eliminating unions. That's who.

The whole point that escapes so many people is that there are issues that are put forth that came from anti union groups, such as Koch Bros. and whomever that woman was talking to WI Gov. about getting rid of unions/turning WI red.

This is not pushed by the masses, which is what I mean.

It's been part of dialog because there is a group behind the scenes writing legislation that would benefit their interests, but it would apparently be opposed by all those people that showed up in the capitals.

I think it's very odd that there is some call for help from workers that they asked for this. They didn't ask for this and there are people (I'm guessing YOU) that support the non democratic way of conducting business, just forcing legislation through.

The folks on the scene say that is what happened. I believe them, not the bureaucrats.

She doesn't consider herself an American Indian so why should anyone else? That story is all whosis could come up with in his hunt for dirt from her past. All she said was that one of her ancestors was a Native American, the same thing that quite a few Oklahomans can say. As a matter of fact, the only people in OK who don't have American Indian ancestors somewhere in their background are those who just recently moved into the state.

That a certain element seems to be bent all out of shape about it reflects on them, not on Dr. Warren, and it tells you all you need to know about their fears of the other.

She/he was told the same thing since it popped up with her Native American rants against Warren. It don't listen.

Yes sir, we'll put Elizabeth in her place. The Senate banking committee is just the place for her. WOW. I've seen how the whole Republican party runs from her. A smart woman with power. Just look at the seat of their pants, it shows right through the shine.

Angeleno is bent out of shape that a woman stood up to his favorite frat boy bully of the Senate and knocked him out of office.

Once again, Angeleno's claims that ancestry dictates expertise or interest are racist.

Warren's right where she should be, Angeleno (where does a racist Republican like you come from in L.A.? Porter Ranch is most likely, the last community of white morons left in the Valley) - she's going to kick your kind so hard, so repeatedly, that you will never sit down without pain. We'd suggest she kick you in the head, but nothing of value would be harmed there.

Just a point on Jacob Roberts. The gun he used was stolen. Everything he did was illegal. Making an action illegal does not mean that it will no longer happen. I remember during the Columbine tragedy there was a press conference with the local police chief. A reporter asked him if tougher gun laws would have prevented the massacre. After a brief pause he responded: "everything that they did was already against the law". I am not pro or anti gun. I do not own a gun, but have no problem with folks legally owning them. What intriques me is how gun control advocates think that banning (or severly restricting) guns at this point in time - when there are literally hundreds of millions of them out there - would stop crazies or criminals from using them. They really have no problem breaking laws.