Let’s think logically here,k everybody, what’s more likely? That the current reports of crews not being turned away are true, or that the original report is true and that Obama’s band of Chicago thugs has twisted arms, doled out big wads of cash and threatened to break kneecaps if they didn’t change their tune?
Occam’s Razor, people!
I think the lizard people might have gotten to the news network that originally broke the story…
I will agree to this IF he has the balls to come back into the thread and say, “Whelp, I really screwed the pooch on this one. Sorry!” I get that he is (or should be) embarrassed at being fooled by a false news story, but he’s got to put on his big boy pants and own up to it.
I think the Alabama crew may have stopped for…refreshment(?)…on the way and needed to come up with a plausible story.
Literally!
It was not unsubstantiated. You may not trust the substantiation, but that doesn’t transform it into non-existence.
Is that seriously all you want to say right now? Do you think if you wait long enough this story will turn factual at some point?
He’ll be back when he finds that non-union guy who didn’t get a reach around.
If that’s all you’ve got to say then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
I’m willing to acknowledge that the story was not as egregiously toxic as the report I quoted – in good faith, I might add – led readers to believe.
But even the revised story is not fairly summarized by “mean old anti-union folks refused to work.” They were asked to affiliate with a union, and they didn’t want to. It’s now unclear to me if they were then told they could not work, or if they assumed incorrectly that affiliating was necessary. But if affiliating with a union was necessary to render emergency aid, I stand by my point: that’s toxic.
If, on the other hand, that assumption was incorrect, then I was headstrong and foolish to accept it on the basis of one source.
Forget it Jake, it’s Brickertown. (Sorry, I just HAD to do that. It just popped into my head. Carry on)
Unsubstantiated.
I stand by that.
adjective
Weak sauce, bricker.
What do you suppose “affiliating with a union” means in this case? I don’t know, and neither do you, what was in the paperwork they were sent.
D’ya suppose that by signing that paperwork, they would then have to pay dues to the NY/NJ unions they were tied to in perpetuity and have to register in their own state as a “union shop”? Does that even sound reasonable? Do you suppose that by signing the paperwork that they would be agreeing, while they were working in NJ, to abide by certain safety standards and quality standards? Perhaps someone more familiar with such agreements could weigh in here, but given some of the quotes by the NJ workers, that seems like a possibility.
You were headstrong and foolish to accept it on the basis of one source regardless of the truth, and I’m sure you know that.
Thank you. I’m impressed. Not a strong one, but a heartfelt admission nonetheless. I retract my earlier accusation of “ignorant partisanship”. Now, if you investigate whether your assumption was incorrect, and check back in, I’ll mail you a beer.
That’s mighty big of you, Bricker. Your magnanimity is simply breathtaking.
What is “affiliate”? The IBEW is on record saying they never, ever rejected aid from non-union groups, and the original reports that Decatur Utilities were “turned away” were uncatergorically wrong. So tell me, what were these men required to do that would be so against their principles that they wouldn’t help out?
What is “affiliating”? I’m curious to know how this backpedaling will go once we find out what exactly was required in the documentation (Documentation that did not, contrary to assertions, come from the IBEW or New Jersey as previously asserted), and I think your take on this “implied affiliation with a union” will prove just as flexible once the facts come out. It’s funny (not funny HaHa) how affiliation never made it into your OP. Let the backtracking begin!
No, you were headstrong and foolish no matter what.
I think this is the crux of the problem right here. I can’t imagine starting an OP with a news story from a paper I’m not familiar with without checking it out first with a source that I am familiar with. Righty blog hooks Bricker and reels him in.
Now, having said that, I can’t tell you the number of times one of our lefty posters has done the same sort of thing, and the thread goes on to a full page or more before he gets called on it. There is much to what Giraffe said upthread, but it still doesn’t excuse the action. Would that all the poster in this thread were as eager to chastise and ridicule the lefty posters when they do this same thing.
“Unsubstantiated” is overreaching. It’s perfectly reasonable to call it “Badly Substantiated”, however. Or “BS” for short.
Well, so long as there is Liberal Hypocrisy™ I suppose that makes Bricker not look like a twat.
Considering your track record with your assumptions in this thread so far, you’ll understand why we won’t engage them further.
Your defense that it was in “good faith,” (or in other words, “Well, I’m prepared readily to accept this account of bad behavior because it conforms to my pre-existing political beliefs”) is unavailing. After all, you posted a story that was promptly and easily debunked with minimal googling. That scotches any claim of a “good faith” defense.
Until you are prepared to come with allegations that you are willing to stand behind without qualification, I think you should admit you were grossly in error and reproached others for “toxic” behavior. And that imagining, equally baselessly, still more alternative scenarios where you might yet be proven right is only digging yourself deeper.
Ok.
You tell me: what, if anything, happened?
I will accept uncritically your version of this story.