Democrat urges unions to 'get a little bloody when necessary'

[Хahar 🤔]

Usually when union members get bloody, it's their own blood that is spilled.

Exactly.  This wasn't a call to bring your guns to a rally and shoot people who voted for "the wrong guy"... this was a call to action in order to get union members out into the trenches to fight for their rights... and get a little bloody doing so.  Clearly rhetorical.

Calling for armed revolt if elections don't go how you want them ≠ 'getting a little bloody' while fighting to protect your rights.

I see.  Threats of violence from liberals are just "rhetorical".  Similar comments from conservatives are imminent threats to the republic.  Got it.  Or perhaps political rhetoric is just political rhetoric - and constitutionally protected speech.

Of course, if any of you with red avatars bothered to read the article, you'd see that Rep. Capuano apologized.  That must be because he wasn't going anywhere close to advocating violence, right?

And spare me the nonsense that union members are angels who have always just peacefully protested.   Do we really need to go through the history of union thugs beating up those who dared protest against Obamacare at some town hall meetings?  Or union thugs beating up replacement workers at strike sites?

It's not the left that glorifies the cult of violence. Equivalence is false.