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

[cinyc]

Democrat urges unions to 'get a little bloody when necessary'
Michael O'Brien /The Hill
02/23/11 07:57 AM ET

Sometimes it's necessary to get out on the streets and "get a little bloody," a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin.

"I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going," Capuano said, according to the Statehouse News. "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

--Snip--

Oh no!  Incendiary rhetoric!  Capuano must be a teabagger!

[SvenssonRS]

And this, Democrats, is why there is functionally zero difference between parties.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This thread is a False Analogy Logical Fallacy

[Lief 🗽]

And this, Democrats, is why there is functionally zero difference between parties.

Four words that a Congressman from Massachusetts said in a small speech to union members is the reason why the two parties are exactly the same? Uh...

[Roemerista]

Instead of exactly the same, I would say this is how it is easy to find four dispicable words that someone has sad, such as the politican who suggested using live ammo to clear out the protesters.

[DrScholl]

And this changes things that teabaggers said how? It changes nothing.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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

[Beet]

Protest fetish is mistaken. The world is not Egypt. No to rule from the streets.

[opebo]

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

Precisely.  He's just saying 'get ready boys, you're heads are going to get cracked open, just like in the old days'.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, as has been pointed out, it's historically the right-wingers who murder the union protesters; rarely is it the other way around (in fact I can't think of any instances off the top of my head unless you lump in people like anarchists; even the Wobblies' most violent tactics were just slowing down their work or sit-down strikes).

[Torie]

Capuano retracts his remarks, and states that he wishes he had used other language. We just have another undisciplined politician who mouths before he thinks. Shocking!

[cinyc]

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?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's unhelpful in any context - regardless of who says it.

[Napoleon]

It's unhelpful in any context - regardless of who says it.

Yes, our political dialogue is better served by full time civility rather than constant negativity, hateful remarks, and references to violence.

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

Cinyc has become the master of false equivalence and intellectual dishonesty. 

[krazen1211]

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

Really? Then why is the liberal who tried to murder President Gerald Ford cheerfully interviewed on MSNBC and the Huffingtonpost?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/sara-jane-moore-tried-to_n_208512.html

[Brittain33]

The mid 1970s have virtually no relevance to the current political set-up.

[Insula Dei]

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

Really? Then why is the liberal who tried to murder President Gerald Ford cheerfully interviewed on MSNBC and the Huffingtonpost?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/sara-jane-moore-tried-to_n_208512.html

What drugs are you on? If Glenn Beck told you Charlie Manson was a conservative hero, would you try to downplay what he did?

[krazen1211]

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

Really? Then why is the liberal who tried to murder President Gerald Ford cheerfully interviewed on MSNBC and the Huffingtonpost?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/sara-jane-moore-tried-to_n_208512.html

What drugs are you on? If Glenn Beck told you Charlie Manson was a conservative hero, would you try to downplay what he did?

This really doesn't make any sense at all.

I guess its really convenient for the so called 'progressives' to ignore history so much.

[Brittain33]

I guess its really convenient for the so called 'progressives' to ignore history so much.

What do you see about Squeaky Fromme's "ideology" that motivates large numbers of liberals? Is she a heroine on Daily Kos?

[krazen1211]

I guess its really convenient for the so called 'progressives' to ignore history so much.

What do you see about Squeaky Fromme's "ideology" that motivates large numbers of liberals? Is she a heroine on Daily Kos?

Did you even click on the link? You have the wrong assassin in mind. So, as far as I can tell, does Tyrone.


Sarah Jane Moore was a self-described liberal, who got involved in self-described liberal groups and in anti-war protests. In fact, today (well 3 years ago), she was a self-described liberal Hillary supporter.

[Brittain33]

I guess its really convenient for the so called 'progressives' to ignore history so much.

What do you see about Squeaky Fromme's "ideology" that motivates large numbers of liberals? Is she a heroine on Daily Kos?

Did you even click on the link? You have the wrong assassin in mind. So, as far as I can tell, does Tyrone.


Sarah Jane Moore was a self-described liberal, who got involved in self-described liberal groups and in anti-war protests. In fact, today (well 3 years ago), she was a self-described liberal Hillary supporter.

She also committed her act before the vast majority of posters here, myself included, were born, and has no relevance for what any liberal today or of the last 20 years does. It's like me condemning Republicans for selling arms to Iran. They're generally not supportive of that now. Whether the individual carries on and supports candidates, when she has no influence or respect, is not relevant, any more than the Westboro Baptist Church defines Republicans.

If by some chance she were relevant now, she'd be condemned by everyone.

The anti-war movement of the 1960s is not identical as the anti-war movement of the 2000s, although a few older people now overlapped. There was nothing like Kent State because there was no draft, for example.

[Brittain33]

More to the point: there was a violent wing to the left in the late 1960s, some of which lingered on into the 1970s. That is dead and gone. Republicans try to make hay from the charred remnants of that fire, like the New Black Panthers or Sarah Jane Moore. But they are relics from a different time with no relevance to today.