You had to reach a long way to come up with a statement so lacking in intelligence.
So which are you - a Democrat, or a Union Thug? The reason I asked? Your questioning my “intelligence”.
Just because you fail to see the semi-humorous (I guess not to you), tongue-in-cheek stab at the Democrat party thugs, then I guess you probably shouldn’t read about 20% of the posts here on FR.
Lets see - let me explain this to you in language that MAYBE you might understand, and not be offended...:
Which political party most directly benefits from the big unions?
And what is one of the classic strong-arm tactics of the big unions? Do what we demand “or else”.
And finally - what is the DNC telling the Florida party? Do what we say “or else”...
I don't think he was so far off. Didn't the unions recently attempt to get a law passed that basically eliminated the "anonymous ballot" meaning that all votes were identified and tied directly to the voter? This was a major problem due to the recorded history of union intimidation and corruption that infests union activities. Sadly, many unions have been infiltrated by the same likes that run civil rights groups and other branches of the unified socialist movement.
I think "battman" was simply insinuating that there's a history of intimidation to influence or rather "savagely curtail" any independent thinking outside of that which the DNC dictates. And I use the word "dictate" in the worst sense. All these folks need is a symbol a little harsher than the donkey and they can begin goosestepping parades and we won't be able to tell the difference from now and 1939 Berlin.
The consistency between the DNC and the unions referred to in Battman's post is simply the heavy handed techniques used to influence votes and election outcomes. I suspect that threatening to deprive the Florida Democrats of electoral representation in a Presidential election may (ah-hem) motivate them to reconsider their position.
I mean, you might be leaning towards defense of union activity. Yet that's an issue of public relations, and flaming him isn't going to help any...
At any rate, I didn't understand the contention there.
Your post was unwarrented. I think the comment was perfectly apropriate both allegorically and intellectually.