Call to Citizen Media! Michael Moore Calls Out the Mobs In Wisconsin, Bring Your Cameras to Capture Any Thuggery

[JohnSmith2007 353]

for you they do - too bad your evidence in Wisconsin is so weak to allow it.

I know that old lady with the tambourine looked like she might kick off at any time but I think she is free to buy her brats wherever she likes.

These paid protesters are thugs. They were brought in to disrupt and intimidate. That is their only function.

[Zero Sum 305]

Now being a 'liberal' union/thug is a job. Someones should look into taxing them.

Can we also do the same with political contributions to causes? This being a political cause and all...

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Now being a 'liberal' union/thug is a job. Someones should look into taxing them.

Can we also do the same with political contributions to causes? This being a political cause and all...

It always has been a job. Professional protesters have been used by the left for a long time. Look it up.

[Zero Sum 305]

It always has been a job. Professional protesters have been used by the left for a long time. Look it up.

Cool. More job opportunities. Maybe the 'right' also has them. After all, the same Gov Walker considered uprooting public order by seeding the peaceful protests with agitators. And that ain't free. Quit the theatrics, both sides need to act democratically. And if you looked up yesterday's political actions, you'd see who wasn't acting democratic.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Do they recruit from the same places as the professional callers to talk radio shows like Rush and Hannity?

[SMOKE 1,426]

Where does it say it was the same day?

And why show it at all if it's not coverage of Wisconsin, which is the only story they were covering at that time? I don't think anyone was "bused in" for a weekend protest from Sacramento, which is what they were discussing when they showed the clip.

i was watching this on oreilly when it aired. before this clip starts, they were discussing the solidarity protest around the country. i assumed it was the same day, just like i assumed the palm trees were not in wisconsin.

Edited March 10, 2011 by SMOKE

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Fell free to redefine thuggery however you want.

Here's the definition of thug.

thug noun \ˈthəg\

Definition of THUG

: a brutal ruffian or assassin : gangster, tough

Tell me, what brutality on part of the protesters is captured in this clip? I must have missed it somehow.

i was watching this on oreilly when it aired. before this clip starts, they were discussing the solidarity protest around the country. i assumed it was the same day,

Edited March 10, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[SMOKE 1,426]

i was watching this on oreilly when it aired. before this clip starts, they were discussing the solidarity protest around the country. i assumed it was the same day, just like i assumed the palm trees were not in wisconsin

i put that back in there for you.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here's the definition of thug.

thug noun \ˈthəg\

Definition of THUG

: a brutal ruffian or assassin : gangster, tough

Tell me, what brutality on part of the protesters is captured in this clip? I must have missed it somehow.

As in member of a gang.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As in member of a gang.

Fail No. 2.

gang·ster noun \ˈgaŋ-stər\

Definition of GANGSTER

: a member of a gang of criminals

Wanna go for three counts of fail?

Edited March 11, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Fail No. 2.

gang·ster noun \ˈgaŋ-stər\

Definition of GANGSTER

: a member of a gang of criminals

Wanna go for three counts of fail?

Where is the fail?

AFSCME Gangsters

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Where is the fail?

AFSCME Gangsters

The presence of a - or a few - criminal(s) in any large group does not make that group a gang of criminals and hence doesn't make all of that group's members gangsters. Otherwise, there would be few, if any, groups out there that weren't gangs of criminals. We'd literally all be gangsters.

The Old Guy failed again.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The presence of a - or a few - criminal(s) in any large group does not make that group a gang of criminals and hence doesn't make all of that group's members gangsters. Otherwise, there would be few, if any, groups out there that weren't gangs of criminals. We'd literally all be gangsters.

The Old Guy failed again.

No, unions are gangs in the classic sense. The force people to pay tribute and protection (dues), they enforce their will through intimidation and violence and are run in many instances by criminals. No, gangs is a very appropriate term for unions. I would say you have failed Dog.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No, unions are gangs in the classic sense. The force people to pay tribute and protection (dues), they enforce their will through intimidation and violence and are run in many instances by criminals. No, gangs is a very appropriate term for unions.

Is that you?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Is that you?

Is this you?

Or maybe this is you.