Why not?
You apparently accepted uncritically WAFF’s version to start this thread?
Wow, Bricker. I’m really disappointed. I used to look up to you as one of the few level-headed voices of conservative reason on these boards.
I know you don’t care what random other people on the internet think of you, but I really mean it when I say I’m sad to see you sink this low.
Please, accept you were wrong. You found this story on a biased website and you shared it here without checking it out. And the story is wrong. The NJ guy himself has come out and said they accepted all aide. End of story.
Please don’t resort to the mental gymnastics that people like adaher and clothahump and OMG go through in defending their positions. With you joining their ranks, who are we left with?
John Mace? HurricaneDitka?
…Drunky Smurf? shudders
I don’t know. For that reason, I’m not going around accusing people of despicable behavior.
What’s your excuse?
Do you honestly think that’s what I said? Really? After specifically quoting what Hamlet posted and saying I thought that was “the crux” of the matter?
If you do, then I suggest you are a blinded partisan who can’t stomach an ounce of criticism against your own side.
Nah. Just headstrong.
You’re just as bad as ppr. Stop politicizing this tragedy, you jerk. People have lost their lives, their homes and their livelihoods. My husband had a six hour commute today. His boss was so worried about him, he made a frantic call to my house to ask if he was okay since he had said he was going into work. They’re rationing gas so my husband and I are debating whether or not to run out this weekend for fresh fruit and veggies or continue to eat the canned and frozen stuff. Some of my dear friends are still without power right now.
How dare you attempt to make a cheap political point out of the worst weather tragedy to hit this region in recent memory!
:rolleyes:
That is some serious turd polish you have there.
That’s an absurdly low bar. If all one needs is something that “substantiates” a claim, then everything is substantiated. The key part of the phrase here is “substance”. So, one must ask: do you trust the substantiation? If so, why? What led you to this allegedly substantive source in the first place? Was the source not a hint at it’s substance, or lack thereof?
Just pointing out that no matter what others have done, doesn’t make Bricker’s actions any less silly.
I don’t doubt that liberals pile on conservatives more than other liberals. It’s human nature to cut the guys on your side some slack. That said, I don’t think think there would be wide-spread support of the liberal version of Bricker’s thread.
Look at it from a liberal point of view, Bricker is generally respected on this board, but holds some downright evil views (from a liberal perspective). He is pro voter-suppression, for instance. So of course when he falls flat on his face, those on the other side of the aisle will point and giggle.
I agree with much, if not most of liberal thinking. Not because it is liberal, but because I’ve thought about it and think they are the right solutions to the various issues. I don’t think that makes me a partisan. Although I wouldn’t vote for a Republican until they get their house in order, every Republican Senator is another vote for McConnell as Majority Leader and Boehner and Speaker, and that shit is something the country doesn’t need.
True. But the first report of the incident was I heard broadcast on Washington DC’s WRC TV 4’s morning news – not a hotbed of conservatism. It did not refer to any other sources.
Googling the story produced this story, which parenthetically now features an update claiming that it was the IBEW, not the company, that turned them away. And it produced the WAFF report I linked to.
Even the more pro-union reports of the incident now appearing quote an official as “suggest[ing] that municipal companies might have issues working side-by-side with non-unionized contractors.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree it’s fair to call this “unsubstantiated.” Nor do I agree that subsequent reports have completely eviscerated the substance (ha!) of my complaint.
But let me ask you: what do YOU think happened here, if anything?
And the restoration of services being delayed in any way by refusing help from non-union assistance – that, to you, is somehow immune from criticism? Some of your dear friends are without power right now, you say, but you are uninterested in learning if power crews were turned away, discouraged, or in any way impeded from assisting simply based on their union status?
I’m sorry, but if this incident happened, even in the way that the corrected reports are now suggesting, that does not feel like a cheap political point, but a serious indictment of an attitude concerning the prioritization of union over no-union labor.
Why isn’t that of some concern to you, given its potential effect on your dear friends?
I think you knee-jerked yourself so hard that you posted something without knowing or caring if it was true, because it fed into your prejudices and made you feel like you had a gotcha moment. I think you backed yourself into a corner yet again, and now you feel like you have no option but to hope against hope that some smidgen of a detail somehow leaves you enough wriggle room to claim that you were right to hate unions all along. That’s what I think happened here.
You mean that thing that didn’t happen? That thing that didn’t happen that you posted a Pit thread about?
Yeah, why is it that non-union people hate union people so much that they’ll let innocents suffer rather than help union people help the innocents? Why is that, Bricker?
Well, then it’s a good thing I didn’t say that it did!
Nor did I say there would be. I said there wouldn’t be such an immediate and vicious pile-on.
That’s not why I said that remark was hopeless partisan. It’s because you seem to see everything through partisan glasses and, as happened in this case, distort the meaning of what someone posts. There was no reason to think I was trying to minimize what Bricker did by posting what I wrote. No reason, that is, unless everything has to be a matter of one side or the other.
I think it’s unwise to rush to judgement based on news stories during a catastrophe such as this one. We all know that news isn’t what it used to be, and everyone is rushing for the scoop. When natural disasters hit, better to wait for the story to flesh itself out before jumping the gun. I think you’ve been on the other side of this type of situation enough to know better.
Doesn’t a story like this demonstrate the importance of devolving emergency management to the states? The union thing is just a red herring.
No one state can manage the expense of a disaster of this size-not in terms of money, supplies or manpower. This is why federal involvement is needed. The whole nation chips in to get help where it’s needed.
Hell-fire, boy! That there’s …communism!
Let’s take alook at the totality of Bricker’s own words in the OP:
“Another example of the ill-effects that come from powerful unions.”
Well, the problem with that statement is that the facts show it is an example of fear of union “affiliation” (which I couldn’t help but notice Bricker has gone out of his way to avoid defining despite repeated requests) and not powerful unions that caused these “ill effects”. Decatur Utilities did not do any helping, not because of “powerful unions”, but because they were “confused” about the “possibility” of an “implied affiliation with unions” they read into some of the paperwork they got (not from the union as they originally said), not because they were told to stand down or their help was refused.
"When a union’s territory is so jealously guarded that non-union help is refused even under these circumstances, the union influence is not benign. It’s toxic
Well, again we run into a problem with the reality of the situation. Union territory was NOT jealously guarded. Non union help was NOT, in fact, refused. And the union influence, in this case, was benign. Instead it was fear of “union affiliation” (still waiting Bricker) that was “not benign” and was “toxic”.
In light of those … let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and call them “errors” … and the facts that have subsequently come to light, he has to fall back on something, anything, that will let him save some kind of face.
So we get “well, IF this incident happened”. You gotta kinda feel for the guy when he has to say “yeah, sure there’s a lot of evidence it didn’t happen the way I said, but IF this thing that didn’t happen, had happened, why then I’d be making a point.” It’s kinda sad really.
Another recounting of what happened. Some choice quotes:
"“At no time were our crews ever turned away,” Hardin said. “We have not had any direct contact with any union representation whatsoever.”
““It is the policy of this union and the companies we represent to welcome assistance during major natural disasters, regardless of union status,” IBEW International President Ed Hill said Friday.”
“Jerry Keenum, business director of the Alabama district of IBEW, said no there are no union requirements that would have prevented DU workers from assisting.”
"“This is not, in my view, a union versus nonunion issue,” Hardin said. “It’s more of a logistics issue, of us being able to get the right information at the right time. I understand there are many nonunion work forces all through the region helping with the restoration, and as far as I know they are working alongside other union forces without issues.”
"“It is unfortunate that at a time when skilled line workers are working around the clock to help devastated communities, sketchy reports should cast a pall over these efforts,” Hill said. “The real story is that our members and others are working side by side to help people in New Jersey and all affected states get their power back and recover from the effects of the storm.”
Those of you who are disappointed in Bricker can hold out the hope that his brain will de-cloud significantly after Tuesday.