Trump

[TeamsterGrrrl]

1 hour ago, david wild said:

Who said anything about your teamster pension ??? Not me, and I did not see it anywhere else either. You earned it, enjoy it. Now if you want me to pay for it, then you gotta problem. Oh that's right, we bailed out GM. Still did not address the violence and other mean spirited ways in which your union and other liberals do biz. I did not see any conservatives calling for dead cops or burning down the local Winn Dixie (food store in south) or calling Rosie and Whoopi bad names (I could). I guess we have more class than that. Oh, and saying Trump's son is autistic?? Where do you get this ****,  names for Obama go hand in hand with job, but liberals go off the deep end, you don't think Hillary is not behind the green party recount??? Why would they care they lost millions. Just more Clinton corruption.

Sounds like you're prejudiced against everybody, but I can't let your lies about my union stand. You accuse my union of being violent... Truth is, my local has never even gone on strike! 

[kscarbel2]

"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally." - W. C. Fields

[david wild]

During the last big trucker strike, weren't union members shooting other drivers  ????????

[kscarbel2]

11 minutes ago, david wild said:

During the last big trucker strike, weren't union members shooting other drivers  ????????

Violence spreads in trucker strike

The New York Times  /  February 2, 1983

Violence spread today as independent truckers tried to enforce their efforts to shut down the trucking system to protest scheduled increases in Federal fuel taxes and user fees.

Federal transportation officials and the trucking industry called for restraint and vowed to maintain truck movements across the nation.

In the worst of the violence, George Franklin Capps, 33 years old, a teamster from Clayton, N.C., was shot through the neck by a sniper Monday night while driving along Route 701 near Newton Grove, N.C.

Howard N. Adams, 45, of Riverside, Calif., was wounded in the chest Monday afternoon and was in serious condition at a Utah hospital.

Another trucker was in satisfactory condition after he was shot this afternoon as he walked out of a truck stop in Gary, Ind., and still another man was shot when a bullet fired at a truck by a sniper near LaPorte, Ind., missed but hit a man driving a van filled with 11 children. The wounded man, Chris Balawender, 35, was hospitalized in fair condition with a hip wound.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission offered a $10,000 reward today for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for injuring a girl near Pittsburgh. Melissa Sarsfield, 14, was struck in the head with a brick at 5:15 P.M. Monday as she rode along the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Police say the brick was thrown at a truck from an overpass or a nearby hill and crashed through the back window of the Sarsfield car. The was listed in guarded condition today after five hours of surgery.

Eight other shootings were reported Monday night in four western counties of Pennsylvania.

The Associated Press reported that the police were investigating attacks on at least 50 rigs in 22 states since the strike began early Monday.

Five drivers were hurt when bullets or rocks hit their trucks in unrelated incidents in Alabama, Maryland, Florida, Connecticut and Oregon.

After Ohio's independent drivers joined the strike today, eight trucks were hit by gunfire and dozens had their windshields smashed.

Although truck traffic appeared to be down considerably in many areas of the country Monday night, Federal officials said traffic picked up today, indicating that many drivers were choosing to drive in daylight and park at night.

Some drivers expressed more fear of militant strikers than a desire to stop work over their grievances.

A seven-state survey of selected truck plazas by the National Association of Truck Stop Operators today found that gasoline and diesel sales were off 15 percent from last Tuesday in the West and Southwest and down 25 percent in the Middle West.

No shortages of goods were reported in the nation's markets. Despite the intimidation, trucking specialists said there were only remote chances of a widespread shutdown. ''Given this recession, for every trucker who parks his rig, three or four others will chase after his freight,'' said an official of the American Trucking Associations (ATA), which represents most of the major carriers.

Michael Parkhurst, president of the Los Angeles-based Independent Truckers Association, has led the call for a shutdown, but others oppose it.

Independent truckers, or owner-operators, make up about one-fourth of the nation's 400,000 truck drivers. The independent drivers object to recent legislation raising the Federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, imposing excise taxes on heavy equipment and increasing registration fees for large trucks. Because of the poor economy and heavy competition, they contend, they will be unable to pass on the higher costs for fuel.

The strike is opposed by drivers who work for companies and by their union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The ATA has also called for an end to the strike while it works more quietly in Congress to oppose the taxes. 'Call Your Congressmen'

Mr. Parkhurst told drivers today: ''We have stressed over and over that we deplore violence. If you want to help, go home and call your Congressmen and senators.''

However, Bennett C. Whitlock Jr., president of the ATA, laid the blame indirectly at the feet of Mr. Parkhurst, saying: ''We deplore violence, which is the natural aftermath of a shutdown characterized by Parkhurst and his organization as a 'war.' It is unfortunate that the actions of a few ill-advised and frustrated individuals may adversely affect not only the vast majority of law-abiding truckers, but also the American public.''

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, the number of bills to repeal or roll back portions of the tax package rose to six today as Senator Rudy Boschwitz of Minnesota and Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota, both Republicans, introduced legislation.

[41chevy]

5 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

Violence spreads in trucker strike

The New York Times  /  February 2, 1983

Violence spread today as independent truckers tried to enforce their efforts to shut down the trucking system to protest scheduled increases in Federal fuel taxes and user fees.

Federal transportation officials and the trucking industry called for restraint and vowed to maintain truck movements across the nation.

In the worst of the violence, George Franklin Capps, 33 years old, a teamster from Clayton, N.C., was shot through the neck by a sniper Monday night while driving along Route 701 near Newton Grove, N.C.

Howard N. Adams, 45, of Riverside, Calif., was wounded in the chest Monday afternoon and was in serious condition at a Utah hospital.

Another trucker was in satisfactory condition after he was shot this afternoon as he walked out of a truck stop in Gary, Ind., and still another man was shot when a bullet fired at a truck by a sniper near LaPorte, Ind., missed but hit a man driving a van filled with 11 children. The wounded man, Chris Balawender, 35, was hospitalized in fair condition with a hip wound.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission offered a $10,000 reward today for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for injuring a girl near Pittsburgh. Melissa Sarsfield, 14, was struck in the head with a brick at 5:15 P.M. Monday as she rode along the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Police say the brick was thrown at a truck from an overpass or a nearby hill and crashed through the back window of the Sarsfield car. The was listed in guarded condition today after five hours of surgery.

Eight other shootings were reported Monday night in four western counties of Pennsylvania.

The Associated Press reported that the police were investigating attacks on at least 50 rigs in 22 states since the strike began early Monday.

Five drivers were hurt when bullets or rocks hit their trucks in unrelated incidents in Alabama, Maryland, Florida, Connecticut and Oregon.

After Ohio's independent drivers joined the strike today, eight trucks were hit by gunfire and dozens had their windshields smashed.

Although truck traffic appeared to be down considerably in many areas of the country Monday night, Federal officials said traffic picked up today, indicating that many drivers were choosing to drive in daylight and park at night.

Some drivers expressed more fear of militant strikers than a desire to stop work over their grievances.

A seven-state survey of selected truck plazas by the National Association of Truck Stop Operators today found that gasoline and diesel sales were off 15 percent from last Tuesday in the West and Southwest and down 25 percent in the Middle West.

No shortages of goods were reported in the nation's markets. Despite the intimidation, trucking specialists said there were only remote chances of a widespread shutdown. ''Given this recession, for every trucker who parks his rig, three or four others will chase after his freight,'' said an official of the American Trucking Associations (ATA), which represents most of the major carriers.

Michael Parkhurst, president of the Los Angeles-based Independent Truckers Association, has led the call for a shutdown, but others oppose it.

Independent truckers, or owner-operators, make up about one-fourth of the nation's 400,000 truck drivers. The independent drivers object to recent legislation raising the Federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, imposing excise taxes on heavy equipment and increasing registration fees for large trucks. Because of the poor economy and heavy competition, they contend, they will be unable to pass on the higher costs for fuel.

The strike is opposed by drivers who work for companies and by their union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The ATA has also called for an end to the strike while it works more quietly in Congress to oppose the taxes. 'Call Your Congressmen'

Mr. Parkhurst told drivers today: ''We have stressed over and over that we deplore violence. If you want to help, go home and call your Congressmen and senators.''

However, Bennett C. Whitlock Jr., president of the ATA, laid the blame indirectly at the feet of Mr. Parkhurst, saying: ''We deplore violence, which is the natural aftermath of a shutdown characterized by Parkhurst and his organization as a 'war.' It is unfortunate that the actions of a few ill-advised and frustrated individuals may adversely affect not only the vast majority of law-abiding truckers, but also the American public.''

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, the number of bills to repeal or roll back portions of the tax package rose to six today as Senator Rudy Boschwitz of Minnesota and Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota, both Republicans, introduced legislation.

• US DOL findings

• Nearly fifty years after John F. Kennedy first condemned corrupt leadership in the American labor movement, it is still plagued by rampant corruption, embezzlement, racketeering and influence from numerous organized crime organizations. From penny-ante theft to multi-million dollar embezzlement schemes, labor leaders continue to violate the trust of the members they claim to represent.

• The labor movement is nothing but the sum of its many parts—millions of working Americans who’ve entrusted union leaders to spend a portion of their hard earned salary for the benefit of the collective good. Financially speaking, the sum of the movement’s parts totals more than $10 billion dollars annually in mandatory dues and controls another $400 billion in financial assets in strike funds, pension plans, and health care benefits.

  In fact, in just the last five years, hundreds (maybe thousands) of labor leaders at all levels of the movement have been convicted of embezzlement, corruption, racketeering, or engaging in organized crime. The problem is rampant, getting worse, and yet the unions seemingly refuse to address it.

• The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act’s (LMRDA) reliance on self-government, public disclosure, and ultimately deterrence has failed;
• The Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) has investigated and prosecuted union leaders for embezzling more than $100 million in union dues since 2001;
• Investigations by the DOL’s Office of Inspector General, which investigates labor racketeering and organized crime’s influence within the labor movement, has resulted in more than $1 billion in fines, restitutions, and forfeitures;
• Fewer than 5 percent of unions audited by the DOL received unqualified clear passes.

[gearhead204]

in the early 90's Boeings machinist union went on strike , I was working on Boeing property doing site work (moving 3.5 million yards) for a new 747-400 prep pad.  One afternoon when returning to the site, one of the union goons threw a rock at my pick up.....boy did his eyes get big when I slid to a stop and then opened the 4 barrels in reverse. I stopped about 3 feet from him and exited the cab with a 3/4 drive breaker bar in hand.....at the same time a Wash. State trooper also showed up! I received a stern warning from the trooper, the goon was relieved of the picket line as well as his strike pay!   

[david wild]

Thanks for the PROOF guys.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Proof? Almost every one of those bullet points is a lie. for a start, OIGs investigate their agency, not outside NGOs.

[General Ike]

Proof? Almost every one of those bullet points is a lie. for a start, OIGs investigate their agency, not outside NGOs.

The OIG does not just investigate their own agency, they also investigate the circumstances under which funding or grand moneys originating under their agency are inappropriately appropriated or used.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kscarbel2]

Associated Press  /  November 29, 2016

Protesters burned United States flags outside the Trump International Hotel in New York on Tuesday, in an angry response to a tweet by President-elect Donald Trump that flag-burners should face legal consequences.

On Tuesday, Trump suggested that burning the United States flag should be punishable by a year in jail or a revocation of citizenship.

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Nov. 29, 2016

'Flag burning is completely ridiculous ... and I think the vast majority of Americans would agree,' says Trump presidential transition spokesman Jason Miller. 'It's completely ridiculous, and I don't think there's a big universe of people out there who support flag-burning. It's terrible and it's despicable.'

.

.

[RowdyRebel]

What's your point? Scalia felt the same way...that if he were King, it would be illegal to burn the flag...but when Texas v Johnson came up at the Supreme Court, Scalia was one of the justices who voted in favor of free speech.

 

It's called the Constitution. You're free to feel whatever you want to feel about what somebody else might be doing...and so is Trump. Once he swears that oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, his actions may need to differ greatly from his personal feelings on such matters.

[kscarbel2]

4 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

What's your point? Scalia felt the same way...that if he were King, it would be illegal to burn the flag...but when Texas v Johnson came up at the Supreme Court, Scalia was one of the justices who voted in favor of free speech.

It's called the Constitution. You're free to feel whatever you want to feel about what somebody else might be doing...and so is Trump. Once he swears that oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, his actions may need to differ greatly from his personal feelings on such matters.

As Trump's presidential transition spokesman Jason Miller so aptly said, "Flag burning should be illegal, end of story".

Mr. Miller is referring to the "higher law".

The vast majority of Americans don't need a law to know that burning the United States flag is wrong. It is the utmost act of disrespect.

You have adamantly voiced your support for Trump. However now, you are now completely in disagreement with our president-elect over respect for our country's flag. 

Your tremendous enthusiasm for advocating the burning (desecration) of the United States flag is troubling.

[RowdyRebel]

I support LIBERTY, and I defend the CONSTITUTION. Nothing about either should be troubling to you, unless you seek to limit liberty and trample upon the Constitution. Or perhaps you're just a typical liberal hypocrite, where only people who agree with you are permitted to exercise the same liberties you claim for yourself?

Like any president we've had, I'll agree with Trump when he's on the side of liberty and the Constitution, and I'll oppose him when he's not. 

[kscarbel2]

24 minutes ago, RowdyRebel said:

I support LIBERTY, and I defend the CONSTITUTION. Nothing about either should be troubling to you, unless you seek to limit liberty and trample upon the Constitution. Or perhaps you're just a typical liberal hypocrite, where only people who agree with you are permitted to exercise the same liberties you claim for yourself?

Like any president we've had, I'll agree with Trump when he's on the side of liberty and the Constitution, and I'll oppose him when he's not. 

Do you feel burning the U.S. flag is right or wrong ?

[gearhead204]

I can see both points here, flag burning is freedom of speech or expression however you want to say it! But my answer to flag burning would be .....you had better not be receiving any benefits from the government, and if you are, they are revoked! And then secondly, any us military personal who likes to fight or any citizen for that matter should kick their ass! Then maybe they will have some respect and learn that if you disagree with what's going on, you can fly your flag upside down as a symbol of distress.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

And as long as Trump is wrapping himself in the flag, could he send over a bucket truck to replace the busted rope on our town's flagpole? 

[RowdyRebel]

I've stated before that I find the act repulsive. In fact, I'd LIKE to take a 2x4 and hit them upside the head with it when I see them burning the flag. However, just as I have the right to exercise MY right to free speech even when it might offend some pantywaste liberal in search of a "safe space", so does the flag burner. What right do YOU have to speak YOUR mind when you so readily seek to prohibit somebody else from doing the same? If you are pro-freedom and pro-liberty, you MUST allow those who disagree with you the same rights...AND FIGHT FOR their right to do so. Otherwise, where does the line get drawn? This infringement is OK because I agree with what they are saying...but that one isn't because I'm opposed to their message. Bull$#!+. ANY infringement IS NOT OK, so long as by exercising their right they are not causing injury to any person or damaging property belonging to anybody else. Of course if their speech creates a real public hazard (i.e. yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater) or infringing upon another's property rights (i.e. smashing windows & looting), then it is no longer an exercise in free speech and has crossed a line to infringe upon the life/liberty/property rights of another. So long as the flag being burned was bought and paid for by the person burning it (not stolen property), and they are in a location where it would be perfectly legal to burn anything else (T-shirt, bed sheet, etc), and nobody gets hurt in the process and no property is destroyed, then THEY HAVE THE RIGHT to be ignorant, disrespectful, and repulsive.

I disagree with everything the KKK stands for, too, but will argue until I'm blue in the face that they have the right to hold their rallies to put their ignorance on display for the world to see.

Unlike YOU, I don't have to like or agree with somebody else in order to defend their right to act, do, or say the things they do. I don't expect everyone else to agree with me, either. However, once you start attempting to limit the freedoms of others, you lose all credibility in the fight to preserve your own liberties.

[kscarbel2]

13 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

I've stated before that I find the act repulsive. In fact, I'd LIKE to take a 2x4 and hit them upside the head with it when I see them burning the flag. However, just as I have the right to exercise MY right to free speech even when it might offend some pantywaste liberal in search of a "safe space", so does the flag burner. What right do YOU have to speak YOUR mind when you so readily seek to prohibit somebody else from doing the same? If you are pro-freedom and pro-liberty, you MUST allow those who disagree with you the same rights...AND FIGHT FOR their right to do so. Otherwise, where does the line get drawn? This infringement is OK because I agree with what they are saying...but that one isn't because I'm opposed to their message. Bull$#!+. ANY infringement IS NOT OK, so long as by exercising their right they are not causing injury to any person or damaging property belonging to anybody else. Of course if their speech creates a real public hazard (i.e. yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater) or infringing upon another's property rights (i.e. smashing windows & looting), then it is no longer an exercise in free speech and has crossed a line to infringe upon the life/liberty/property rights of another. So long as the flag being burned was bought and paid for by the person burning it (not stolen property), and they are in a location where it would be perfectly legal to burn anything else (T-shirt, bed sheet, etc), and nobody gets hurt in the process and no property is destroyed, then THEY HAVE THE RIGHT to be ignorant, disrespectful, and repulsive.

I disagree with everything the KKK stands for, too, but will argue until I'm blue in the face that they have the right to hold their rallies to put their ignorance on display for the world to see.

Unlike YOU, I don't have to like or agree with somebody else in order to defend their right to act, do, or say the things they do. I don't expect everyone else to agree with me, either. However, once you start attempting to limit the freedoms of others, you lose all credibility in the fight to preserve your own liberties.

Okay, I understand now. You feel the act of burning the U.S. flag to be repulsive. So you and I have exactly the same thoughts on the matter.

And, you are in total agreement with president-elect Trump.....even though by taking this position you feel that you are not supporting liberty nor defending the Constitution. I personally think most people will support your respect for the flag though.  

Regarding the video and the late Justice Scalia's comments, I don't agree with his interpretation of the first amendment so far as flag burning goes (great man otherwise, generally speaking). His opinion isn't etched in stone.

Like Miller said, "Flag burning should be illegal, end of story". It goes without saying.

[RowdyRebel]

That isn't the least bit what I said. You fail to differentiate the way a person feels about something and the actions they may take as a result. I don't have to LIKE something in order to defend YOUR right to do it...just like you don't have to like what I do, so long as you respect my right to do it.

Once you decide you are NOT going to respect another person's right to do something that does not harm you or anyone else in the least little bit, then what ground do you have to stand on when somebody else doesn't like something YOU are doing?

The left likes to call drug crimes "victimless", despite addiction leading to theft, burglary, murder, etc...crimes with very real victims. Joe goes to Walmart and spends $12 to buy a flag and some matches. He spends another $2 for a gallon of gas. He goes out into his back yard, pulls out his phone and opens the facebook app to start live streaming. He pours the gas on the flag and lights it as he talks about how he's fed up with some random policy the federal government has implemented. Who got hurt? Nobody. Who's property did Joe destroy? His own. What did Joe prove? That he's an idiot. However, he has the right to be an idiot. His actions aren't going to compel him to commit other crimes, as a drug addiction will. So who gets hurt? NOBODY! So what difference does it make TO YOU whether he burned a flag or a bed sheet in his back yard?

As long as his actions do not and will not infringe upon the life, liberty, or property rights of another, it is beyond the scope of what the government ought to be able to criminalize.

[41chevy]

It hurts Veterans. Every time a flag is burned I feel and most all of my VNV and DAV post members feel it is show contempt for the service members who gave the lives, were wounded or were lucky and came home for that "freedom". It is nothing more than disrespect. It's their right to burn it, but I'll do jail time if it is done in front of me.

Edited November 30, 2016 by 41chevy

[RowdyRebel]

Did you swear an oath to defend the flag? Or the Constitution? Did you fight for a piece of cloth? Or for the freedom it represents to you? In the "land of the free", shouldn't people be free to decide what that piece of cloth means to them? Hell, take the Confederate battle flag for example. To some, it is a symbol of racism and bigotry. To others, a symbol of pride or signifying the desire for the sovereignty of the states to win out over over an overbearing federal government. In a free society, each side is justified in their view of the flag.

Yes, seeing the flag desecrated evokes strong emotions in those who love this country, the principals upon which it was built, and the symbols associated with it. However, just as you have the right to feel as you do, the flag burner has the right to feel as they do. Unfortunately, flag burning is NOT a justifiable reason for assault. You go to jail, you forfeit your gun rights, and get to carry a criminal record and for what? Everybody who saw that @$$hole burning the flag knew they were an idiot BEFORE you clocked them. Better to just ignore them. Don't watch news coverage of it. Don't buy newspapers with it on the front page. Make it unprofitable for the media to report on such displays of ignorance and they will stop getting the attention they crave. They burn the flag because they know it gets under your skin. THAT is their ultimate goal. So don't let it. Ignore them. When they realize nobody cares about their silly little protest, they won't do it anymore.

[gearhead204]

its a wonder that they are not arrested for flag burning in public under "inciting a riot" or "perpetrating violence"  or other similar charge. 

[41chevy]

 a bit of

5 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

Did you swear an oath to defend the flag? Or the Constitution? Did you fight for a piece of cloth?

I fought and most all in my unit fought because we were put there to fight. Flag and a piece of paper mean shit when people are trying to kill you. The same as when we lived in Israel from 1972 to 1974, I  fought because people were trying to kill us including my family.  You took the oath when you were in service. Didn't the constitution and flag go hand in hand for you? Did for my people.  Guess the Constitution and Flag don't go together under the laws.

If the flag is just a meaningless piece of cloth, then for those of us who fought under it and feel emotions towards it are assholes.   

[david wild]

You're white, pay taxes and have a job. You have no freedom of speech.

[41chevy]

2 hours ago, david wild said:

You're white, pay taxes and have a job. You have no freedom of speech.

I couldn't agree more! Got homeless illegals squatting in a far corner of my property, did the white thing and went to the V.S.P.D. to evict them. Can't violate their "rights". I have to serve them with a notice issued by the local magistrate. The crap has more rights than the person paying property taxes in Virginia. I learned my lesson, never do that again, just dozer them and let the survivors leave