2012 Election Thread

[quote name='dmaul1114']Agreed. There's really no way to truly be a fence sitter unless you just have no principles, values or beliefs. I mean you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but that's not really sitting on the fence--it's just being on a different side of the fence on those two broad categories of issues.

But for most individual issues there isn't a lot of gray area between left and right views. You're either for higher taxers and a big social safety net, or your against it, you're for gay marriage or against it, your pro-life or pro-choice etc.

Yeah, there's matter of degree in terms of things like taxes, foreign policy (interventionist, isolationist or in between) etc., but you're still on one side of the fence or the other if you're remotely informed and have any kind of opinion on the issues. Some just have more extreme views and are further from the fence is all. Most people are still clearly on one side or the other.[/QUOTE]

This is absolutely untrue, and this thought process is doing more damage to possible solutions to our problems than it helps.

It's actually the opposite, if you are well informed then you know there is give and take on both sides of issues (good points, bad points, pros, cons). If you are bias or misinformed you believe there are only two choices, the right way or the wrong way.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Go back to that CBS article you linked (ostensibly to show that it's not just a right-wing talking point): what, in that article, supports your view that, during the attack, Obama denied requests for assistance?[/QUOTE]
The President is the only one who can authorize the military to cross an international border, and we know this authority was not delegated down beyond the inner circle.


"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...d-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/?pageNum=1


Tell me this. Why would they remain silent and allow the Republicans to define this issue entirely by themselves a week before the election, if they thought the truth wouldn't hurt them? They have been entirely willing to disclose information of this nature rapidly in situations where it helps them. We had sensitive details about Bin Laden and Al-Awlaki almost immediately. Obama has been asked point blank who denied extra security before the attack, was assistance denied during the attack, and what his role was, and he has steadfastly refused to answer. He is essentially trying to run out the clock on this thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']This is absolutely untrue, and this thought process is doing more damage to possible solutions to our problems than it helps.

It's actually the opposite, if you are well informed then you know there is give and take on both sides of issues (good points, bad points, pros, cons). If you are bias or misinformed you believe there are only two choices, the right way or the wrong way.[/QUOTE]


What issues are you on the fence about?
 
[quote name='ID2006']What issues are you on the fence about?[/QUOTE]

This isn't about any particular person's views or on an issue. The very idea that it is irritating to you guys that people are in the middle and having a mind of their own, and drawing their own conclusions and solutions to issues, simply shows the arrogance of this forum. You can agree with an idea, but not to the extent that they believe it.

I will regret this, but I will bite and give you an example.

Whether or not you believe pro choice is the right way, most people concede that the government can tell them not to have an abortion at a particular point, Why? Isn't that going against what they are fighting for? If the government has any say, they are simply taking the right away from the women correct?

So in your eyes, if you believe women should have a choice, but you limit abortions to 6 months or less, then you are a fence sitter. Because you sit in "the gray area" of the issue. But this does not mean you have no values or principles or beliefs, it means just the opposite.


It is only black and white (left or right) when you reduce it to "pro choice vs anti choice" or "pro life vs pro death". Politicians and Armchair Politicians alike,(right and left) have a way of looking at such things from a perspective that could possibly be from space, however it hardly ever is as accurate or "black and white" as they think it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']This isn't about any particular person's views or on an issue. The very idea that being in the middle and having a mind of your own, and drawing your own conclusions and solutions to issues is irritating to you guys, simply shows the arrogance of this forum. You can agree with an idea, but not to the extent that they believe it. It doesn't mean you don't have "principles, beliefs, or values", it actually means just the opposite.
But I will bite and give you an example.

Whether or not you believe pro choice is the right way, most people concede that the government can tell them not to have an abortion at a particular point, Why? Isn't that going against what they are fighting for? If the government has any say, they are simply taking the right away from the women correct?


It is only black and white (left or right) when you reduce it to "pro choice vs anti choice" or "pro life vs pro death"[/QUOTE]


It seems to me that dmaul's post covers what you said:

[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, there's matter of degree in terms of things[/QUOTE]

That doesn't sound 'black and white' to me. His point seems to be that you can't be completely undecided one way or the other. You'll have an opinion, even if it doesn't perfectly align itself on the side with which you have more in common.

Being pro-choice or pro-life is a generally a matter of deciding when something is considered a separate human being. The government allowing abortions until a certain point would then be setting the bar for when life at a minimum begins. If you're pro-choice, you can still have a personal belief as to when abortion should no longer be permitted, but at that point, you're not on the fence. Same with being Pro-Life, although there seems to be inherent hypocrisy unless you take a hardline stance as a Pro-Life advocate.
 
[quote name='ID2006']It seems to me that dmaul's post covers what you said:



That doesn't sound 'black and white' to me. His point seems to be that you can't be completely undecided one way or the other. You'll have an opinion, even if it doesn't perfectly align itself on the side with which you have more in common.

Being pro-choice or pro-life is a generally a matter of deciding when something is considered a separate human being. The government allowing abortions until a certain point would then be setting the bar for when life at a minimum begins. If you're pro-choice, you can still have a personal belief as to when abortion should no longer be permitted, but at that point, you're not on the fence. Same with being Pro-Life, although there seems to be inherent hypocrisy unless you take a hardline stance as a Pro-Life advocate.[/QUOTE]

First off, he says right in his post that you can only be "pro choice or pro life" or his unspoken abstain from the issue.

Secondly, he says right in his post that there isn't a lot of gray area between issues.

Thirdly, you are showing your bias. How do you sense the hypocrisy in pro lifers for what would have to be a hardline stance to not be hypocrits, but the pro choicers are simply "determining when they personally believe life begins." There is a law banning late term abortions, how many pro choicers are for lifting that ban? Why should they be establishing their personal beliefs of when a life begins on other women who may not believe the same? The only solution besides no laws at all are common sense laws based on scientific knowledge, not personal or religious feelings. So tell me, what science is behind banning late term abortions besides "it has a face"?
 
[quote name='Knoell']First off, he says right in his post that you can only be "pro choice or pro life" or his unspoken abstain from the issue.

Secondly, he says right in his post that there isn't a lot of gray area between issues.[/QUOTE]


"...isn't a lot of grey area..." does not mean there is none. Hence, not black and white. The examples he gives are the ones without much grey area (but allegedly some.) Additionally, he says "most issues", meaning there are some that do have a lot of grey area, which frankly should be an automatic win here.

[quote name='Knoell']Thirdly, you are showing your bias. How do you sense the hypocrisy in pro lifers for what would have to be a hardline stance to not be hypocrits, but the pro choicers are simply "determining when they personally believe life begins." There is a law banning late term abortions, how many pro choicers are for lifting that ban? Why should they be establishing their personal beliefs of when a life begins on other women who may not believe the same?[/QUOTE]


Well, if they allow abortions because of rape, they are saying that an innocent human can be killed because his or her mother was raped. So... how is that not hypocritical? Human life is sacred except in these cases? To them, it should be murder even in rape cases because you are killing a human.

There's a stark difference there compared to Pro-Choice where one simply doesn't believe it's a human until a certain point. It's based on one's perception and knowledge, which may include ignorance of science, but isn't necessarily them going back on their beliefs, they should have to explain why they think it is a human at that point; then you can decide if there is hypocrisy, especially if they then give exceptions for after that point. On the other hand, the Pro-Life instance which says it is definitely a human from the start has inherent hypocrisy for a non-hardline position that allows exceptions.
 
[quote name='ID2006']"...isn't a lot of grey area..." does not mean there is none. Hence, not black and white. The examples he gives are the ones without much grey area (but allegedly some.) Additionally, he says "most issues", meaning there are some that do have a lot of grey area, which frankly should be an automatic win here.
[/QUOTE]

......

[quote name='dmaul114']But for most individual issues there isn't a lot of gray area between left and right views [/QUOTE]

I am not going to get into the abortion issue, it was just an example of how there IS a lot of gray area between left and right views, if you would come back from space and figure out that it isn't so simple as to round everyone up into one category or another and claiming the "fence sitters leftover just don't have any beliefs". It simply isn't true. Regardless though, we can both agree, peoples views are a lot more unique and distinct than "left" or "right", and perpetuating the cycle of HAVING to choose only hurts any progress.
 
Perhaps you should just give your definition of 'fence sitter', because calling someone a fence sitter doesn't make them one. Did anyone say every single person left was a 'fence sitter'?

What dmaul said was that you're not a fence sitter unless you pretty much have no opinion.
 
[quote name='Knoell']First off, he says right in his post that you can only be "pro choice or pro life" or his unspoken abstain from the issue.

Secondly, he says right in his post that there isn't a lot of gray area between issues.

Thirdly, you are showing your bias. How do you sense the hypocrisy in pro lifers for what would have to be a hardline stance to not be hypocrits, but the pro choicers are simply "determining when they personally believe life begins." There is a law banning late term abortions, how many pro choicers are for lifting that ban? Why should they be establishing their personal beliefs of when a life begins on other women who may not believe the same? The only solution besides no laws at all are common sense laws based on scientific knowledge, not personal or religious feelings. So tell me, what science is behind banning late term abortions besides "it has a face"?[/QUOTE]

There are more than you'd imagine that would like to have free reign on abortion.
 
I think we need some brightening up here, if only for everyone other than myself for the obvious sports implications. I present...

The Redskins Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule

It's general enough that an in-depth analysis isn't needed to understand it. It's not hard science, but an interesting correlation nonetheless. Being a Redskins fan is depressing enough, but the fact that they hold some kind of play in a Presidential Election is sorta maddening. It's a "You can't win situation" no matter what the outcome is.

[quote name='dafoomie']Great article on Nate Silver/538 summing up some of the criticisms of his model:
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2012/10/post.php[/QUOTE]

I like this article. It does explain that the 538 theory is in its' infancy, and that the internals are at odds with the top line polls, which Silver bases his projections on. I'm not saying it's a bad theory, but it does seem to ignore a lot when it gets right down to it.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Perhaps you should just give your definition of 'fence sitter', because calling someone a fence sitter doesn't make them one. Did anyone say every single person left was a 'fence sitter'?

What dmaul said was that you're not a fence sitter unless you pretty much have no opinion.[/QUOTE]
It's more complicated than not having an opinion, and maybe even fence sitter isn't the best term. It's that smugness that comes from the feeling that you're above it all, that you're a level above because you don't get involved in petty partisan politics. It seems like fence sitting on the surface, but it's more than that I think. I think some just get a kind of satisfaction from it. They accomplish nothing, but it makes them feel better.
 
to some degree Nate's model is worthy of criticism (as are most forecasting models) but I had to quit after a few paragraphs when the guy compared election forecasting to a hurricane. Sure why not? Let's compare lettuce and a lion that is trying to kill you since both are, in the end, edible!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruh roh. Dafoomie, I finally read an article, and your issues seem to be put to bed, tucked in, and kissed gently on the forehead:

http://news.yahoo.com/detailed-acco...ck-response-020906681--abc-news-politics.html

"There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support," said the official. The official's comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of a Fox News report that CIA teams on the ground had been told by superior officers to "stand down" from providing security support to the consulate."

"Less than an hour later everyone at the annex was evacuated with the help of "a heavily armed Libyan military unit."

I wonder if Rush will shut his puffy, fat, pill-packed mouth now. Nah, of course not. He knows more than the CIA.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Ruh roh. Dafoomie, I finally read an article, and your issues seem to be put to bed, tucked in, and kissed gently on the forehead:

http://news.yahoo.com/detailed-acco...ck-response-020906681--abc-news-politics.html

"There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support," said the official. The official's comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of a Fox News report that CIA teams on the ground had been told by superior officers to "stand down" from providing security support to the consulate."

"Less than an hour later everyone at the annex was evacuated with the help of "a heavily armed Libyan military unit."

I wonder if Rush will shut his puffy, fat, pill-packed mouth now. Nah, of course not. He knows more than the CIA.[/QUOTE]

The question should be "why were Marines even in Libya," or "why did the government drop bombs from heaven on Libya to help insurgents who massacred black Africans," and instead we're arguing over which agency of government decided not to roll tanks into some non-sanctioned consulate that, based on the actions of the government over the last 30 years, was probably being used for trafficking weapons into Syria or something.
 
"they" releases a new timeline of Benghazi

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/new-timeline-of-benghazi-attack-notes-quick-response-by-defenders

The chain of events described in the timeline:

-- Around 9:40 p.m. local time, the first call comes in to the annex that the consulate is under attack.

-- Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team of about half a dozen leaves the annex for the consulate.

-- Over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons from Libyan allies and make their way into the compound under fire.

-- At 11:11 p.m., an unarmed drone that had been requested from the U.S. military arrives over the compound.

-- By 11:30 p.m., all U.S. personnel, except for the missing ambassador, depart the compound in vehicles under fire.

-- Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the annex receives sporadic small-arms fire and rounds from rocket-propelled grenades; the security team returns fire, and the attackers disperse about 1 a.m.

-- At about the same time, the second team of security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and tries to negotiate for transport into town. Upon learning Stevens was missing and that the situation at the annex had calmed, their focus becomes locating him, perhaps at a local hospital.

-- Still before dawn, the team at the airport secures transportation and armed escort and -- having learned that the ambassador was almost certainly dead -- heads to the annex to assist with the evacuation.

-- The second team arrives with Libyan support at the annex at 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the annex. The two security officers were killed when they took direct mortar fire as they engaged the enemy. That attack lasted only 11 minutes then also dissipated.

-- Less than an hour later, a heavily armed Libyan military unit arrived to help evacuate all U.S. personnel.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Ruh roh. Dafoomie, I finally read an article, and your issues seem to be put to bed, tucked in, and kissed gently on the forehead:

http://news.yahoo.com/detailed-acco...ck-response-020906681--abc-news-politics.html

"There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support," said the official. The official's comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of a Fox News report that CIA teams on the ground had been told by superior officers to "stand down" from providing security support to the consulate."

"Less than an hour later everyone at the annex was evacuated with the help of "a heavily armed Libyan military unit."

I wonder if Rush will shut his puffy, fat, pill-packed mouth now. Nah, of course not. He knows more than the CIA.[/QUOTE]
This only reinforces my point. All of the resources that the CIA responded with were in country and did not require Presidential approval.

This official's statement is at odds with the sources who were actually at the annex. It doesn't explain why the response to the attack was limited to the CIA's resources that were already in country, which were clearly not adequate. It does not explain why the State Department responded to Stevens' requests for more security by reducing his existing security. It does not explain why the requests for support later at the annex were denied nor does it attempt to refute that allegation. It does not explain why the operatives would paint the mortar team with a laser and expose their position if there was not an armed drone or an AC-130 on station, or why the second drone sent from Italy after the attack was unarmed.

They simply regurgitated what had been reported previously with some vague denials in order to deflect attention from today's jobs report.

Here's another article from Jennifer Griffin:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ion-breakdown-in-obama-administration-during/
 
[quote name='dafoomie']This only reinforces my point. All of the resources that the CIA responded with were in country and did not require Presidential approval.

This official's statement is at odds with the sources who were actually at the annex. It doesn't explain why the response to the attack was limited to the CIA's resources that were already in country, which were clearly not adequate. It does not explain why the State Department responded to Stevens' requests for more security by reducing his existing security. It does not explain why the requests for support later at the annex were denied nor does it attempt to refute that allegation. It does not explain why the operatives would paint the mortar team with a laser and expose their position if there was not an armed drone or an AC-130 on station, or why the second drone sent from Italy after the attack was unarmed.

They simply regurgitated what had been reported previously with some vague denials in order to deflect attention from today's jobs report.

Here's another article from Jennifer Griffin:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ion-breakdown-in-obama-administration-during/[/QUOTE]

OK, now I can accuse you of not reading the article. Read it again, and look through your last 3 paragraphs. They say the drone was elsewhere in Libya, it's fully within the CIA's "jurisdiction" to respond to international events, the Libyan's did assist with security, Obama and his administration were neither to fault nor to praise for the handling of it. The CIA agents on the ground are the praiseworthy ones.

But then to see you politicize it further by saying it's an elaborate wag the dog to distract from a miniscule increase in unemployment is clinically insane. You either jump up and down and demand more details, or you don't. You don't get to scream for more details, then decide to dismiss them because you know the full story and intelligence officials don't.

This is the posterchild for everything I hate about our current two party system. If this Libya thing changes even one vote for President, Ann Coulter is going to need to expand application of the term "retard".
 
[quote name='Clak']It's more complicated than not having an opinion, and maybe even fence sitter isn't the best term. It's that smugness that comes from the feeling that you're above it all, that you're a level above because you don't get involved in petty partisan politics. It seems like fence sitting on the surface, but it's more than that I think. I think some just get a kind of satisfaction from it. They accomplish nothing, but it makes them feel better.[/QUOTE]

lol... four years of complaining about those engaged in petty partisan politics and now those who don't engage in it are smug *******s.

You're either with us or you're one of them.

And **** them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']lol... four years of complaining about those engaged in petty partisan politics and now those who don't engage in it are smug *******s.

You're either with us or you're one of them.

And **** them.[/QUOTE]

Yah, I don't entirely get the offence over another person not affiliating with a political party, but whatever. For the first time in years I voted for President, and I wrote myself in. I was amazed by the number of people who gave me Facebook lectures over how wrong that was, I should vote for someone who has a real chance, out of the two candidates. I never realized people get so upset over somebody else's vote.

I think it's hilarious that smugness and arrogance of non-party alignment is frowned upon here, but smugness and arrogance of atheists seems to be board acceptable and supported. The mentalities are quite similar.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Another pretty good jobs report.

Unemployment up a tick to 7.9 from more people going back to looking for work, but 171,000 jobs added in October, and Aug/Sept estimates revised upward 84,000 from prior estimates.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/02/news/economy/october-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t1[/QUOTE]

you can make up any numbers you want BUT until billy bob and their cousin find a job those numbers mean nothing to the avg joe who still has no job
 
[quote name='slidecage']keep throwing that dirt obama maybe one day you will find something that sticks[/QUOTE]

slidecage, I'm assuming most posters subscribed to this thread have you on ignore. Next time, try reading the article you're referencing before you post.

I also hate it when the Bureau of Labor Statistics just makes up numbers willy nilly. THE GALL OF THOSE PEOPLE!
 
[quote name='eLefAdEr']slidecage, I'm assuming most posters subscribed to this thread have you on ignore. Next time, try reading the article you're referencing before you post.

I also hate it when the Bureau of Labor Statistics just makes up numbers willy nilly. THE GALL OF THOSE PEOPLE![/QUOTE]

point is they do make up the number

few weeks back they go O the numbers fell big time.... Then a week later they go o we forgot to add in

california and that pushed the rate right back up to where it was
 
love how they allow someone to say

BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE when it hit Louisiana

Wheres fema where all the money were are the helicopters coming in to save all of the people trapped ... where is the people coming in to save people from freezing to death ..... thats right nowhere that is why they are even turning people way if your not in a union to fix the power


OBAMA HATES WHITE PEOPLE wonder when that will come out
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KingBroly']I think we need some brightening up here, if only for everyone other than myself for the obvious sports implications. I present...

The Redskins Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule

It's general enough that an in-depth analysis isn't needed to understand it. It's not hard science, but an interesting correlation nonetheless. Being a Redskins fan is depressing enough, but the fact that they hold some kind of play in a Presidential Election is sorta maddening. It's a "You can't win situation" no matter what the outcome is.



I like this article. It does explain that the 538 theory is in its' infancy, and that the internals are at odds with the top line polls, which Silver bases his projections on. I'm not saying it's a bad theory, but it does seem to ignore a lot when it gets right down to it.[/QUOTE]


Someone decided to create an NFL rule for the 31 other teams. Not as straight forward but funny nonetheless.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/nfl-trends-point-romney-win-redskins-rule-still-164556236.html
 
It seems like a lot of those perfect predictors are on the line this week. The Redskins Rule is the first one I heard about, and I think it's the most prominent.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Yah, I don't entirely get the offence over another person not affiliating with a political party, but whatever. For the first time in years I voted for President, and I wrote myself in. I was amazed by the number of people who gave me Facebook lectures over how wrong that was, I should vote for someone who has a real chance, out of the two candidates. I never realized people get so upset over somebody else's vote. [/QUOTE]

Even the suckers you scammed into friending you on fb have crowned you king douche. Congrats?
 
[quote name='berzirk']OK, now I can accuse you of not reading the article. Read it again, and look through your last 3 paragraphs. They say the drone was elsewhere in Libya, it's fully within the CIA's "jurisdiction" to respond to international events, the Libyan's did assist with security, Obama and his administration were neither to fault nor to praise for the handling of it. The CIA agents on the ground are the praiseworthy ones.[/quote]
Not sure what you're getting at here. The CIA responded with everything the station chief had the authority to use, they did the best they could. The criticism is that there was never approval from the administration for anything beyond the resources he already had at his disposal which didn't require approval.

Some Libyans accompanied the 8 Americans from the airport, but only a small number at first. They originally only wanted to allow 2 Americans in and this dispute delayed them from 45 minutes to an hour at the airport. The CIA officers at the annex tried to find Libyans to assist and they could not.

Also within the articles are additional clear indications that this was terrorism and not some protest. They knew within 4 hours it was Ansar al-Sharia and they knew the group had surrounded the hospital where Stevens was taken. Why did they send out Susan Rice to lie about this like Bush did with Colin Powell and WMD's?
 
[quote name='camoor']Even the suckers you scammed into friending you on fb have crowned you king douche. Congrats?[/QUOTE]
you mean president douche.
 
He's been running an awful Presidential Campaign for 6 years , he's probably just exhausted. The multiple personalities alone must be draining!
 
[quote name='EdRyder']He's been running an awful Presidential Campaign for 6 years , he's probably just exhausted. The multiple personalities alone must be draining![/QUOTE]

Politicians never stop campaigning. Just ask Obama.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']Shh.. You're going to make that little girl cry again[/QUOTE]

It's nice to see you admit what you really are.
 
[quote name='slidecage']love how they allow someone to say

BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE when it hit Louisiana

Wheres fema where all the money were are the helicopters coming in to save all of the people trapped ... where is the people coming in to save people from freezing to death ..... thats right nowhere that is why they are even turning people way if your not in a union to fix the power


OBAMA HATES WHITE PEOPLE wonder when that will come out[/QUOTE]

images
 
[quote name='egofed']http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/07/obama-goes-seven-weeks-without-white-house-press-conference/

Obama has been known to dodge press questions for quite a while also.

And, seriously, does anyone who leans left here defend the Unions in their actions of refusing help after Sandy?[/QUOTE]

One of the "facts" that is likely to be a major part of wingnut goshitery over the weekend, as the cats 'n kittenz try to make chicken salad out of that which is not chicken salad, is that "non-union" utility crews were "turned away" from the storm-battered east coast because union thugs would rather let kittens die in trees or something. Exhibit A for this is going to be a bunch from Alabama:

A six man crew from Decatur Utilities headed up there this week, but Derrick Moore, one of the Decatur workers, said they were told by crews in New Jersey that they can't do any work there since they're not union employees. The general manager of Decatur Utilities, Ray Hardin told Fox Business they were presented documents from the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers at a staging area in Virginia. The documents stated they had to affiliate with a union to work, which the crews could not agree to. Hardin said the crews were not turned away but were made to believe that affiliating with the union was a requirement to work.

Wait. They weren't "turned away." They just thought they were? I'm confused. And so, apparently, were they.

And, of course, well, no:

Bill Yell, spokesman for Huntsville Utilities, said nine of his employees are currently helping with recovery from Hurricane Sandy and had no union-related issues. "That's a rumor," he said. "We are starting work this morning with Long Island Power Authority. We were headed to a New Jersey utility but they had all the crews they could handle." A spokeswoman for Joe Wheeler Electrical Membership Cooperative said the crews from Trinity also are assisting with storm recovery and, in fact, are unionized. "It is not true for us," she said. "I don't know how we got lumped in there (in that report). We sent eight guys to Maryland, not New Jersey. They have been there since before the storm but they've finished work and are headed home this morning."...Yell and Phillips said they have been inundated with calls from national media outlets in the wake of the report, including Fox News and CNN, and several newspapers in New Jersey.

Hey, idiots, leave these guys alone. They've got enough on their hands.

I do expect this tale to pop up in a Romney stump speech by no later than 9 o'clock tonight, however.

See yaz on the trail.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/hurricane-sandy-relief-workers-unions-14363226#ixzz2BGAirzwU
 
Thanks for the clarification. I was at the firehouse yesterday and heard this on the news. It seemed too crazy to be true. I wonder how many retractions will actually be posted and broadcast?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top