Labor Leader On Tea Party: "Let's Take These Sons Of Bitches Out"

Business Insider ^ | Sep 5, 2011 | Zeke Miller

[TakebackGOP]

Teamsters President James Hoffa, Jr. provided a controversial — and profane — opening act for President Barack Obama in Detroit, "President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march.... Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," he added.

[PGalt]

😂

Where’s Sr? Meadowlands? Speed bump in road? Somebody’s backyard? Dunno.

[PGalt]

RIP RFK

Some nefarious scum did it. Whatever happened to Sirhan Sirhan?

[PGalt]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv4-m-cIZf4

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Junior forgets that someone “took out” his father and it wasn’t to lunch. What goes round, comes round, Jr.

Another look at his ties to the Mafia is in order.

[Lean-Right]

I worked in Texas, resided in New
Mexico. (I know, sounds kinda
backwards).
I made many trips back and forth,
with numerous stops at truckers
dives. Not a single driver I had
conversation with during those
stops, supported Obama or anything
he stood for. And they numbered in
the hundreds. What’s said in the
office vs what’s out on the road
are entirely different. As most
drivers don’t care too much about
their union overlords. They join
the union to put food on the
table. Truckers for Trump is a
prime example.

[central_va]

94% of the US workforce is not in a union. Good luck with your “knock out”.

[moovova]

Hoffa, Jr is feeling mighty frisky.

Hoffa, Sr was unavailable for comment.

[DiogenesLamp]

Teamsters President James Hoffa, Jr. provided a controversial — and profane — opening act for President Barack Obama in Detroit, "President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march.... Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," he added.

Labor Union areas of the country wanting to be an army against people who oppose Washington DC power and taxes? Hmmm... this sounds familiar.

[BroJoeK]

To his everlasting credit, Donald Trump won over more union voters, more blacks, Hispanics and Asian Americans than any Republican in recent memory.
He even won the endorsement of some unions, especially in law enforcement, but also, for example, some engineers & boilermakers, iirc.

Other unions (especially government workers) are not just married to the Democrats but have, in effect, become appendages of the Democrat party, not sure if there's ever going to be hope for them...

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, Trump reached deep into opposition territory to snag a lot of their voters, and this is a good thing. I'm just pointing out the Union labor mindset that existed in the same parts of the country in 1860 as it does today. Pretty much every state surrounding the great lakes is a haven for Unions, and they were just as concerned about "scab" labor in the 1850s as they are today.

What i'm pointing out is that the social demographic divide has lasted through the last 170 years. It's still pretty much the same ideas, the same people in the same areas of the country.

[BroJoeK]

Sorry, but labor unionism was not such a big deal in 1860 as it became in the latter 19th century.
Yes, the North did have a lot of manufacturing but in 1860 it was nearly all small-business, family shops with near neighbors as employees.
Such small shops also employed immigrants and the word "scab" was sometimes used, but again, before 1860 there were neither major unions nor large strikes.

What Northern workers did worry about in 1860 was the possibility of being replaced by work-gangs of Southern slaves through legal actions related to the SCOTUS Dred-Scott decision.

As Abraham Lincoln famously put it at the time:

"We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State."
House Divided Speech June 16, 1858

[DiogenesLamp]

What Northern workers did worry about in 1860 was the possibility of being replaced by work-gangs of Southern slaves through legal actions related to the SCOTUS Dred-Scott decision.

This is exactly what I was referring to. They were motivated by Economics, not morality.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This is exactly what I was referring to. They were motivated by Economics, not morality."

Why do you think the two were in opposition?
The fact is that abolitionism had its roots in religious revivals known as "the Great Awakenings", especially the Second Great Awakening, about which it's said:

"Revivals and perfectionist hopes of improving individuals and society continued to increase from 1840 to 1865 across all major denominations, especially in urban areas.
Evangelists often directly addressed issues such as slavery, greed, and poverty, laying the groundwork for later reform movements.[41]
The influence of the Awakening continued in the form of more secular movements.[42]
In the midst of shifts in theology and church polity, American Christians began progressive movements to reform society during this period.
Known commonly as antebellum reform, this phenomenon included reforms against the consumption of alcohol, for women's rights and abolition of slavery, and a multitude of other issues faced by society.[43]"

So Northern abolitionism began in churches as a moral crusade, then later became an irresistible political force when economic concerns raised by the SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling were added to Biblically based moral condemnations of slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why do you think the two were in opposition?

They are never in opposition. People will always make up some moral justification for their own economic interests.

What do you think BLM is?

[BroJoeK]

"People will always make up some moral justification for their own economic interests."

But in the case of abolitionism, the moral arguments against slavery came first, decades earlier.
Those are what caused Northerners to outlaw slavery in their own states and in western territories.
But Northerners were tolerant of slavery in the South and in their national political parties.

What united a majority of Northerners behind Republican antislavery ideas was the perceived threat of explanded slavery after the SCOTUS 1857 Dred Scott ruling.
Their opposition was both moral & Constitutional before it was economic.
The combination is what turned many Democrat states in 1856 to Republicans in 1860.

[DiogenesLamp]

But in the case of abolitionism, the moral arguments against slavery came first, decades earlier.

Sure they did, and all confined to a small contingent of kooks who are little different from "transgender rights" types today. Till it became in their economic interest to embrace these ideas, they simply ignored them.

When they saw that they could use them to further their own economic interests, they did.

Those are what caused Northerners to outlaw slavery in their own states and in western territories.

Dominant factor was not the immorality of slavery. The dominant factor was hatred of black people, and hatred of slaves competing with laborers for work. The last thing anyone cared about was the immorality of forcing black people to work.

What united a majority of Northerners behind Republican antislavery ideas was the perceived threat of explanded slavery after the SCOTUS 1857 Dred Scott ruling.

As I have pointed out before, Dred Scott expanded nothing. Dred Scott merely reiterated what the laws and agreements to create a constitution actually said, but which northern states had simply been ignoring for decades.

Article 4 pretty much means you can't keep slaves out of a state because to do so would deny the citizens of other states the immunities and privileges they deserved when the all the states agreed to make a compact with other slave states.

Dred Scott just simply signaled, "Enough of this pretending you can keep slavery out of your state. You can't. "

If they didn't want to abide by their agreement to allow the Union to be a slave Union, they should not have made that agreement.

Pretending they could restrict something they agreed to was disingenuous, but modern liberals do it all the time. It is simply what they do.

[BroJoeK]

Re: moral arguments against slavery:

DiogenesLamp: "Sure they did, and all confined to a small contingent of kooks who are little different from "transgender rights" types today.
Till it became in their economic interest to embrace these ideas, they simply ignored them."

That's nonsense because there were plenty enough Northern abolitionists to outlaw slavery in their own states.
And so long as they believed their own abolition laws were sound, most Northerners were content to vote for national parties (i.e., Democrats, Whigs) that tolerated slavery in the South.
It was only when they felt abolition in the North threatened (1857) that Northern majorities began voting for the anti-slavery Republicans.

DiogenesLamp: "The Dominant factor was not the immorality of slavery.
The dominant factor was hatred of black people, and hatred of slaves competing with laborers for work.
The last thing anyone cared about was the immorality of forcing black people to work."

That is simply anti-American garbage talk, the kind of rubbish Democrats teach their children on why to hate their own country.
The real truth is that even our Founders knew that slavery was morally wrong and should be eventually abolished because it did not comport with our Declaration ideals.
That had nothing to do with either economics or racism.

The real question here is, why does Diogeneslamp hate his fellow Americans so much you can't imagine anything for them beyond the basest of base motives?

DiogenesLamp: "Dred Scott expanded nothing.
Dred Scott merely reiterated what the laws and agreements to create a constitution actually said, but which northern states had simply been ignoring for decades."

So here's how you yourself could figure out that those words are total complete nonsense, you wouldn't need me to explain it to you: just check out what our Founders said & did at the time.
Did any ever express the opinion you claim here?
I'll save you the time of searching for it -- the answer is "no".
No Founder ever expressed your opinion, or the SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling, and therefore they are garbage, period.

DiogenesLamp: "If they didn't want to abide by their agreement to allow the Union to be a slave Union, they should not have made that agreement."

The insane SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling, and your endorsement of it, notwithstanding no Founder ever agreed to what you claim, period.

[jmacusa]

Bro Joe Diogenes should be paying you for this. Diogenes listens to voices. Mostly his own. No one can tell him anything.

He’s the type if you say good morning to him he wonders what you meant by it.